History Western Civilization, Rome and Cyclical History

[Zyobot]

Definitely not @Skallagrim, but because @Lord Sovereign brought up a "fun" hypothetical:

So, Skallagrim. Humour me for a moment.

Could the world have ended up with a Dutch based universal empire? In all honesty, I think I'd prefer you lot in charge over the yanks.

Funnily enough, I once asked what a world in which the Netherlands went global might look like here, followed by a well-crafted reply here. Besides making the Dutch the premier maritime empire instead of the British, it also implied towards the end that New Nederland was ATL's stand-in for the United States.

In which case: I'd say the macro-historical ramifications of that vary, depending on how much "full-tilt" parallelism we want to indulge in.

On the one hand, if New Nederland overtakes the Netherlands Proper the same way the US succeeded Great Britain as fledgling hegemon, then ATL Modernity would still culminate in an American Empire with a far more "Dutch" than "English" cultural and historical background. Would still bet on it being quite mercantile and "liberty-centric" much like OTL America, of course, albeit with a slew of "on-the-ground" differences that make New Nederlands's Dutch roots stand out much more visibly.

On the other... I suppose we could contrive an ATL parallel to Skall's alt-19th century scenario here, by again casting the Dutch Empire as the global trade empire that converts its holdings into an economic bloc (whereas New Nederland remains an isolationist frontier-land engaged in peaceful commerce with all). Not sure who their main rivalry would be, but no matter who it is, I suppose this variation would call for said rival to stagnate and peter out, before being dismantled — leaving the Dutch Empire the world's unchallenged hegemon.

At any rate, quite a novel and interesting idea. Looking forward to Skall's answer just as much as you are!

 

[Bassoe]

I honestly think we will accidentally fall into imperialism much like the Romans. Europes whole identity right now is built on very fragile non truths that they have escaped history.

All it takes is one major war and everything that makes modern Europe function collapses. The us will basically be stuck propping them up until one day we wake up and their a part of an empire we didn't ask for or want.

I'm confused about what hypothetical conflict you're envisioning here:

• The propagandists and their Chamberlain-Hitler comparisons are actually right after all, after finishing off Ukraine, Putin will come for the rest of Europe and we'll have to intervene to save them, which somehow won't automatically lead to civilization-destroying nuclear war.
• Some kind of pan-European nativist populist uprising against the post-WW2 American occupation, upset about being blackmailed into giving up their colonial empires in exchange for Marshall Plan money, flooded by migrants from America's wars and nordstream. All things considered, I'd prefer if America wasn't able to beat them.
• America must invade the Al-Cliché Caliphate of Europe during their establishment, before they can secure the legacy nuclear weapons left over from their precursor regimes. Aka, the final development of the American neocon foreign policy's hobby of propping up new enemies for more wars to justify their own existence. Armed the jihadists to fight the soviets, then fought the jihadists, destroying their countries so they fled as migrants and conquered more powerful ones...

The thesis that the West (or in any case, America) should adopt a "turtle mentality" (and that, supposedly, "imperialism" has failed) is based on severe -- indeed, fatally dangerous -- misapprehensions.

1. If you adopt a "turtle mentality", you're not becoming a well-defended superpower. You're becoming Tokugawa America. That's cute, and it'll work for a good while. Plausibly a few centuries. And then the proverbial gunboats come, and your civilization is killed. For real. Forever. (Look at Japan as it is now: a society that survived the death of its own culture. Is that a prospect to which one should aspire?)

2. It also means that you surrender roughly everything West of Hawaii, East of Bermuda and North of the Panama Canal to your enemies. This means they have more of everything. It means you're boxed it. It means you've built a prison for yourself, and imagined it to be a fortress.

3. Although this may not matter to some, it is also the path of treason and dishonor. America chose to become a contended for hegemony, and crushed all other contenders in the West. The responsibility of victory is that you actually get the job. If you didn't want to be hegemon, then you should have opted for isolationism back in 1914 (or better yet, 1898) and then stuck to it. That didn't happen. America already made its choice. To abdicate it now is to forsake responsibility for the choice.

4. More practically: to step onto the road to hegemony, go 90% of the way, and then step off it again... that makes you all the enemies, but deprives you of the means to adequately contend against them. Your MAD deterrent will not save you. No deterrent, no system or technology, has ever been permanently unassailable. It's a matter of time before someone invents some new weapon or technology that renders nukes utterly meaningless. And given the drawbacks of the "turtle mentality" (outlined above), overwhelming odds are that your enemy invents it first, rather than a stagnant and isolated Tokugawa America. So on that day, or a day soon thereafter--the gunboats come.

5. Finally, "imperialism" hasn't "failed", because it hasn't been properly initiated yet. What America has been doing up to this point is the prelude to imperialism. This is always a chaotic process full of dumb mis-steps. But once you start that process, your choices become "failure" (which equals death) or "triumph" (which means: embracing imperialism without further hesitation).

At this stage, the only viable path forward is the path that leads to triumph. Anything else is at best a slow suicide.

Be that as it may, we're a lot closer to the country collapsing from globalism-induced logistic cascade failures, possibly deliberately induced by our enemies who're also our essential trade partners, than of foreigners inventing some new Outside Context technological breakthrough that bypasses MAD and building an army capable of invading the fortress continent. And wouldn't defending against the possibility of such a breakthrough look more like throwing the entire military-industry complex budget at pie-in-the-sky theoretical R&D and education of new generations of engineers and scientists in the hopes that it'd lead to America making the hypothetical Outside Context breakthroughs before foreigners, instead of the current model based around bullying third-worlders who try to start rival currencies?

 

[Cherico]

I'm confused about what hypothetical conflict you're envisioning here:

• The propagandists and their Chamberlain-Hitler comparisons are actually right after all, after finishing off Ukraine, Putin will come for the rest of Europe and we'll have to intervene to save them, which somehow won't automatically lead to civilization-destroying nuclear war.
• Some kind of pan-European nativist populist uprising against the post-WW2 American occupation, upset about being blackmailed into giving up their colonial empires in exchange for Marshall Plan money, flooded by migrants from America's wars and nordstream. All things considered, I'd prefer if America wasn't able to beat them.
• America must invade the Al-Cliché Caliphate of Europe during their establishment, before they can secure the legacy nuclear weapons left over from their precursor regimes. Aka, the final development of the American neocon foreign policy's hobby of propping up new enemies for more wars to justify their own existence. Armed the jihadists to fight the soviets, then fought the jihadists, destroying their countries so they fled as migrants and conquered more powerful ones...

Be that as it may, we're a lot closer to the country collapsing from globalism-induced logistic cascade failures, possibly deliberately induced by our enemies who're also our essential trade partners, than of foreigners inventing some new Outside Context technological breakthrough that bypasses MAD and building an army capable of invading the fortress continent. And wouldn't defending against the possibility of such a breakthrough look more like throwing the entire military-industry complex budget at pie-in-the-sky theoretical R&D and education of new generations of engineers and scientists in the hopes that it'd lead to America making the hypothetical Outside Context breakthroughs before foreigners, instead of the current model based around bullying third-worlders who try to start rival currencies?

Honestly when it comes to conflicts there are a bunch of options.

Russia invading, Turkey taking advantage of euopes weakness and invading to rebuild a neo otoman empire, ect ect, I honestly don't know what it would be pretty much any major war would do it, because the EU has built their self esteem, their ego on being at the end of history, of them having conquered the ravages of war and its so quite clearly a bunch of bullshit. But its become defining bullshit and once that breaks that pretty much breaks what's left of europes spirit.

 

[Skallagrim]

So, Skallagrim. Humour me for a moment.

Could the world have ended up with a Dutch based universal empire? In all honesty, I think I'd prefer you lot in charge over the yanks.

The dutch live on the murder highway between Germany and France so it's unlikely. Honestly it's amazing their doing as well as they are.

On the one hand, if New Nederland overtakes the Netherlands Proper the same way the US succeeded Great Britain as fledgling hegemon, then ATL Modernity would still culminate in an American Empire with a far more "Dutch" than "English" cultural and historical background. Would still bet on it being quite mercantile and "liberty-centric" much like OTL America, of course, albeit with a slew of "on-the-ground" differences that make New Nederlands's Dutch roots stand out much more visibly.

One obstacle is that the Netherlands are not only between Germany and France, but in a position that is fairly difficult to defend. Or rather: the core region is actually "naturally defended" by being a tide-flooding march in a big river delta, but the issue is that to make the land useful and profitable (capable of forming the nexus of an ambitious state), you need to drain the region properly... which also makes it far more vulnerable to conventional military attacks.

You can make it defensible even afterwards (the Waterline), but that requires fairly massive investments, and certain level of technology. Most PODs I can imagine for getting the desired result of a real "Dutch empire" would put the Netherlands in the cross-hairs of rivals before this kind of defensive work can be put in place.

Long story short: if the Netherlands get too ambitious with the empire-building, the powers next door come knocking, and that fight is hard to win.

Which is because of the other major obstacle, which is the limited size of the Netherlands. Even if you bulk it up, including some parts of OTL North-Eastern Germany, and all of Belgium & Luxemburg, plus the whole Picardian region of OTL Northern France... the neighbours are still bigger. And then there is the issue that in this "maximum configuration", a big part of the Netherlands wouldn't be Dutch-speaking. That could be solved with a suitably early POD, too-- but it shows that we're talking about long shot options here.

Assuming that you get "big Netherlands" through some late mediaeval POD (I can imagine a few, most involving he Burgundians) and a subsequent butterflying of the Dutch Reformation (also workable, albeit quite tricky), then we thus face the issue of cultural unity (needed to properly get a Dutch empire going) versus political unity (needs to remain limited, otherwise the Netherlands will become the priority target for all the neighbours). But the two are to some extent countervailing! Continued decentralism diminishes the prospects for a truly dominant Dutch culture that prevails over all others within the realm.

That tension continues into the venture of empire itself. As we know very well, the Dutch empire was a very profit-oriented, mercantile affair. Settler colonies weren't a very big priority. That fits into the "traditional" Dutch culture of a league of provinces, mostly bonded together out of common economic interests. To increase the likelihood of real settler colinialism, you need to alter that mentality. That, by default, means altering the very thing that makes the Dutch... Dutch.

I'm sure there's some way in which you can set the various dials to get a pretty decent outcome. Where the right balance is struck. But it's very, very far from a high-probability scenario. Assuming all the above works out, I think @Zyobot has the right idea. What Britain managed to do is create serious, meaningful settler colonies. One of those became politically independent, sure, but Canada and Australia and New Zealand remain as part of a distinct entity.

Presumably, if everything works out perfectly, the Netherlands could do the same. I considered the option of an Anglo-Dutch union, but I do suspect that in practically all cases, it'll be far more "Anglo" than "Dutch". So, regrettably, the real stepping stone for a Dutch-wank is an Anglo-screw. Basically avert the Glorious Revolution completely (easy with an early POD), and generally set Britain on the course not taken in OTL, which makes Britain... well, more like royalist France, really. Meanwhile, the "Big Netherlands" prosper and come to dominate the Eastern Seaboard of North America. Likewise, uncontested Dutch control over South Africa and Oceania could be realised, for instance. Whether these regions remain Dutch politically is hardly meaningful: the areas will be settled by a Dutch-speaking population, shaped and informed by Dutch culture.

It's plausible that, given this premise, Dutch culture would eventually come to be the dominant one in the West. It may, indeed, not be the Netherlands themselves that attain political supremacy-- but one of the former colonies. (Alternatively, there is no colonial independence, but the centre of power just shifts to a former colony.)

On the other... I suppose we could contrive an ATL parallel to Skall's alt-19th century scenario here, by again casting the Dutch Empire as the global trade empire that converts its holdings into an economic bloc (whereas New Nederland remains an isolationist frontier-land engaged in peaceful commerce with all). Not sure who their main rivalry would be, but no matter who it is, I suppose this variation would call for said rival to stagnate and peter out, before being dismantled — leaving the Dutch Empire the world's unchallenged hegemon.

In that scenerio, it should be noted that America goes pretty isolationist, Germany dominates continental Europe, and a federalised British Empire is rapidly turning into a "break-away" High Culture of its own. In the "Dutch-wank" scenario outlined above, it's possible that the Dutch culture could come to dominate the entire West-- but it's also possible that the Dutch Empire is more like the British Empire as described in the linked scenario. Even though it retains its foothold on the European continent, we might then imagine the Dutch Empire to remove its focus from Europe, becoming an oceanic empire that indeed grows into an even-more-separate High Culture.

But again, this is all very speculative, and it would require a lot of things to line up just right.

 

[Lord Sovereign]

The Dutch might live in the Murder Highway of Europe…but as the Spaniards found out, they are not so easily overcome in war.

In fact, that is a point of common heritage for Britain and the Netherlands: seeing off arsehole Catholic Empires.

 

[Cherico]

The Dutch might live in the Murder Highway of Europe…but as the Spaniards found out, they are not so easily overcome in war.

In fact, that is a point of common heritage for Britain and the Netherlands: seeing off arsehole Catholic Empires.

you guys fought the french long before you switched away from catholocism.

 

[Lord Sovereign]

you guys fought the french long before you switched away from catholocism.

Oh absolutely, but forget not the Armada of 1588.

It's why I don't necessarily agree with the "don't swim against the tide" thesis that Skallagrim has. It has been done. How else could the Netherlands have won their independence, could Britain have seen off France, or Prussia somehow overcome Austria?

 

[ATP]

So, Skallagrim. Humour me for a moment.

Could the world have ended up with a Dutch based universal empire? In all honesty, I think I'd prefer you lot in charge over the yanks.

Let them win in 17th century their colonial wars with England.Althought,as somebody here said,we would have dutch USA ruling world then.

P.S i remember some dead story on SB or SV,when powerpuff dutch empire which cover Netherland,Belgium,part of France and Germany/small/, part of North America and even Japan not counting other colonies,get ISOT- ed into WW1.
As a result,first they beat a shot out of germans and american,defeat japaneese fleet,and then - all sides of war start secretly thinking about smashing them together.

Unfortunatelly, story died ten,and i forget both title and author.As usual.

It would bbe nice,if @Skallagrim write some powerpuff Netherland ISOT !

 

[Cherico]

Oh absolutely, but forget not the Armada of 1588.

It's why I don't necessarily agree with the "don't swim against the tide" thesis that Skallagrim has. It has been done. How else could the Netherlands have won their independence, could Britain have seen off France, or Prussia somehow overcome Austria?

Its less that Skallagrim says don't swim against the tide and more like you must be this bad ass to beat the tide. With some eddies requiring more bad ass then others. For example India's version of alexander the great was so fucking bad ass he successfully united india.

 

[ATP]

Its less that Skallagrim says don't swim against the tide and more like you must be this bad ass to beat the tide. With some eddies requiring more bad ass then others. For example India's version of alexander the great was so fucking bad ass he successfully united india.

Or get miracle of Brandenburg House,which saved prussia.They should be destroyed in 7th year war,yet mad tsar saved them.

 

[Lord Sovereign]

Or get miracle of Brandenburg House,which saved prussia.They should be destroyed in 7th year war,yet mad tsar saved them.

Oi, what’s wrong with the House of Hohenzollern? Prussia was no blight on the Western World and in fact achieved great things for it. I believe the Empire she founded won more Nobel Prizes than anyone before or since.

 

[Cherico]

at’s wrong with the House of Hohenzollern? Prussia was no blight on the Western World and in fact achieved great things for it. I believe the Empire she founded won more Nobel Prizes than anyone before or since.

He's Polish, so you know plenty of bad blood after the partition.

 

[ATP]

Oi, what’s wrong with the House of Hohenzollern? Prussia was no blight on the Western World and in fact achieved great things for it. I believe the Empire she founded won more Nobel Prizes than anyone before or since.

They started WW1/with Russia,but still/ and killed normal germans,replacing them with prussian automatons.
If we still have normal Germany,not prussian copy,Europe would be not fucked.

Moreover,they tried to take over world in cartoon villain way coping Frederick the thief - who started war with almost entire Europe,and waited for miracle.

It worked for Germany in 1763,but not 1918 or 1945.
You could be villain,but prussians were stupid villains who acted in way which must lead to thir defeat.
If they were at least efficient,their crimes could be at least partially forgiven.

He's Polish, so you know plenty of bad blood after the partition.

Not that.Their real crime is killig real germans and replacing them with stupid prussian automata which started and lost wars thanks to their prussian stupidity.
If they only steal from us and murder poles,it could be forgiven.
Alas,they destroyed germans - and that lead to current fall of Europe.

Now ,only Poland could be saved,but if german were still normal,Europe would have future.

 

[Skallagrim]

It's why I don't necessarily agree with the "don't swim against the tide" thesis that Skallagrim has. It has been done. How else could the Netherlands have won their independence, could Britain have seen off France, or Prussia somehow overcome Austria?

Its less that Skallagrim says don't swim against the tide and more like you must be this bad ass to beat the tide. With some eddies requiring more bad ass then others. For example India's version of alexander the great was so fucking bad ass he successfully united india.

Or get miracle of Brandenburg House,which saved prussia.They should be destroyed in 7th year war,yet mad tsar saved them.

Replying to this a bit late, but: yes, my view isn't so much that going against the flow of history is impossible, but rather that it requires far more energy-- almost always to the point that it fails, and even in the case where it doesn't, typically still leaving the result fairly temporary. This is why I refer to the probability of various outcomes so often. Some things are very likely to happen, and it takes almost nothing to push things towards that course, thereas other things are long-shot options that require a whole slew of things to go just right.

As far as the examples go:

-- The Dutch struggle for independence co-incides with the wars of religion that ensued from the Reformation, and this whole thing was a reaction to the internal and external problems of the Catholic Church. While some have at times accused me of being blind to the faults of the Church, this is far from true. In truth, I'm certain that around this time, there was bound to be a major shake-up, because the system was no longer functioning properly. This could have been an internal reform, but instead it took the form of a violent schism (and that is typically the worst outcome, since it's most likely to cause massive violence). Anyway, the point is that if it hadn't been for this back-drop, the Dutch Revolt A) would have been less likely to gain proper traction, and B) would have been crushed very quickly, since it would have been faced with the full and undivided 'attention' of the Habsburgs. So were the Dutch really going against the tide here? No. Rather, it was a case of "very skillfully surfing on the tide, and exploiting the big splash for one's own advantage".

-- Britain beating out France can refer to several times when the English/Britons came out on top. The fact that the Anglos marched all over France during the Hundred Years' War (instead of, say, the French habitually marching all over Sussex or whatnot) had a lot to do with the fact that France was pretty divided at that time. England was actually quite coherently unified, compared to most continental states. When France did get its house in order, it was soon decidely the foremost military power on the Continent. Point is, everybody noticed, and we see a succession of anti-French alliances. The great glory of Britain in this affair? Simple: they were the ones organising these alliances. What ultimately made a real difference was that Britain was among the first powers to really go for this whole free trade thing, whereas France stuck to mercantillism in an age when that sort of policy was economic suicide. Napoleon stuck to this error, too. It may well have been the thing that doomed him (his trade policy is what turned Russia against him). After that, Britain had taken the lead, in part because the Continent had been devastated, and Britain (while funding the war in gold and in blood) was essentially untouched. (After the World Wars, the USA would have that same advantage, incidentally.) So I think that France lost to Britain, in the end, because they were going against the tide.

-- Prussia overcoming Austria is not so strange. As @ATP notes, without the Miracle of the House of Brandenburg, it would have been over for Frederick II. He was a badass, but he's way over-rated by posterity. The truth is, he got amazingly lucky. Then Napoleon happened, and Prussia certainly didn't cover itself in honour there. They went all in on the winning side pretty near the end, though, and then they got huge gains out of it. Nothing really inexplicable about that. Point is, if it hadn't been them, it would've been one of the other North German states. Everybody wanted a strong state there, to counter France. Whichever state that was going to be was automatically set to be the rival of Austria in the arising matter of dominance of the Germany. Meanwhile, Austria had its glory days behind it. Prussia exploited that to the maximum extent, but I don't see it as going against the tide. Rather, they saw which way things wre going, and they made a play for power. One that, at least for a time, paid off.


None of this means that there aren't cases where things really do go in the "less probable" direction. As @Cherico notes, someone like Alexander or Napoleon doesn't typically succeed. Such figures arise precisely because the old system (ancient regime!) in which they were born has outlived itself. They arise in a period of flux, and they use innovative and quite drastic methods and plans in an attempt to forge a new world order-- but the quixotic experiments almost never pay off, and things fall apart before their body is cold. But then you have Chandragupta Maurya, who filled this exact role in India... and triumphed. Was he Just That Good™? Did that fact that he was literally a contempory of Alexander allow him to exploit the situation to a greater degree than would otherwise have been possible? We don't know. But we do know that his very existence is proof of one thing:

It can happen.

 

[ATP]

Replying to this a bit late, but: yes, my view isn't so much that going against the flow of history is impossible, but rather that it requires far more energy-- almost always to the point that it fails, and even in the case where it doesn't, typically still leaving the result fairly temporary. This is why I refer to the probability of various outcomes so often. Some things are very likely to happen, and it takes almost nothing to push things towards that course, thereas other things are long-shot options that require a whole slew of things to go just right.

As far as the examples go:

-- The Dutch struggle for independence co-incides with the wars of religion that ensued from the Reformation, and this whole thing was a reaction to the internal and external problems of the Catholic Church. While some have at times accused me of being blind to the faults of the Church, this is far from true. In truth, I'm certain that around this time, there was bound to be a major shake-up, because the system was no longer functioning properly. This could have been an internal reform, but instead it took the form of a violent schism (and that is typically the worst outcome, since it's most likely to cause massive violence). Anyway, the point is that if it hadn't been for this back-drop, the Dutch Revolt A) would have been less likely to gain proper traction, and B) would have been crushed very quickly, since it would have been faced with the full and undivided 'attention' of the Habsburgs. So were the Dutch really going against the tide here? No. Rather, it was a case of "very skillfully surfing on the tide, and exploiting the big splash for one's own advantage".

-- Britain beating out France can refer to several times when the English/Britons came out on top. The fact that the Anglos marched all over France during the Hundred Years' War (instead of, say, the French habitually marching all over Sussex or whatnot) had a lot to do with the fact that France was pretty divided at that time. England was actually quite coherently unified, compared to most continental states. When France did get its house in order, it was soon decidely the foremost military power on the Continent. Point is, everybody noticed, and we see a succession of anti-French alliances. The great glory of Britain in this affair? Simple: they were the ones organising these alliances. What ultimately made a real difference was that Britain was among the first powers to really go for this whole free trade thing, whereas France stuck to mercantillism in an age when that sort of policy was economic suicide. Napoleon stuck to this error, too. It may well have been the thing that doomed him (his trade policy is what turned Russia against him). After that, Britain had taken the lead, in part because the Continent had been devastated, and Britain (while funding the war in gold and in blood) was essentially untouched. (After the World Wars, the USA would have that same advantage, incidentally.) So I think that France lost to Britain, in the end, because they were going against the tide.

-- Prussia overcoming Austria is not so strange. As @ATP notes, without the Miracle of the House of Brandenburg, it would have been over for Frederick II. He was a badass, but he's way over-rated by posterity. The truth is, he got amazingly lucky. Then Napoleon happened, and Prussia certainly didn't cover itself in honour there. They went all in on the winning side pretty near the end, though, and then they got huge gains out of it. Nothing really inexplicable about that. Point is, if it hadn't been them, it would've been one of the other North German states. Everybody wanted a strong state there, to counter France. Whichever state that was going to be was automatically set to be the rival of Austria in the arising matter of dominance of the Germany. Meanwhile, Austria had its glory days behind it. Prussia exploited that to the maximum extent, but I don't see it as going against the tide. Rather, they saw which way things wre going, and they made a play for power. One that, at least for a time, paid off.


None of this means that there aren't cases where things really do go in the "less probable" direction. As @Cherico notes, someone like Alexander or Napoleon doesn't typically succeed. Such figures arise precisely because the old system (ancient regime!) in which they were born has outlived itself. They arise in a period of flux, and they use innovative and quite drastic methods and plans in an attempt to forge a new world order-- but the quixotic experiments almost never pay off, and things fall apart before their body is cold. But then you have Chandragupta Maurya, who filled this exact role in India... and triumphed. Was he Just That Good™? Did that fact that he was literally a contempory of Alexander allow him to exploit the situation to a greater degree than would otherwise have been possible? We don't know. But we do know that his very existence is proof of one thing:

It can happen.

In "The Napoleon Options" By Jonathan North,chapter 7/also Jonathan North/ ,Napoleon commanders manage to keep magazines in Minsk,which resultet in Russian defeat and Europe lead by French-Austrian alliance.
And Saxony,after helping destroy Prussia,become stronger among northern german states.

Author is sometimes trolling us,for example when Austria take Balkans in 1814,but archiduke Ferdinand die to sniper bullet near Sarayewo....

P.S If we made some saxon commander genius,they could break Prussia in 1756,and unite germany later.

 

[Skallagrim]

In "The Napoleon Options" By Jonathan North,chapter 7/also Jonathan North/ ,Napoleon commanders manage to keep magazines in Minsk,which resultet in Russian defeat and Europe lead by French-Austrian alliance.
And Saxony,after helping destroy Prussia,become stronger among northern german states.

Author is sometimes trolling us,for example when Austria take Balkans in 1814,but archiduke Ferdinand die to sniper bullet near Sarayewo....

P.S If we made some saxon commander genius,they could break Prussia in 1756,and unite germany later.

It's true that when I said "if it hadn't been [Prussia], it would've been one of the other North German states", the foremost candidate for the role would indeed be Saxony. This would in a sense be a vindication of their sense of their own destiny. They were the ones who made the Reformation political, so them becoming the founder of a Protestant-led, Northern-oriented German state that either excludes or subjugates Austria would be the crown on their work.

Of course, in OTL, they were rewarded for starting the whole mess by being out-competed and relegated to a pretty minor status, from which they never recovered. There's an ironic sort of justice in that, too (not that they viewed it that way).


...Napoleon establishing a true hegemony over Europe, eventually forcing Britain to throw in the towel, would be a pretty interesting outcome. Napoleon-fanboys would surely wank it to high heaven, but the more likely result is that France and its European vassals lose all power outside of Europe, and Britain becomes the oceanic hegemon to counter France's continental hegemon. (Ironically, the path Wilhelmine Germany should have aimed for.) This would probably be the lead up to a fundamental divergence between the Anglophone oceanic world-system, and the European(-and-eventually-Russian?) continental world-system. No more Western civilisation, but two successor civilisations, slowly growing further apart.

I don't think the Napoleonic dynasty would last all that long. You don't often get three or four capable emperors in a row, as the Maurya Empire shows us. It was all downhill after Ashoka. So probably, Europe would soon split into multiple feuding states again. Resurgent Russia as an equivalent to the Central Asian hordes that overran India? Could happen! Not good for the intellectual development of the continental High Culture, I think.

The oceanic High Culture, by contrast, has all sorts of advantages lined up. Irony of ironies: the most likely outcome of a Napoleonic victory, in the long term, is a massive Anglo-wank!

 

[Zyobot]

Quoting selectively, because the ironic outline @Skallagrim just sketched out rather amuses me:

...Napoleon establishing a true hegemony over Europe, eventually forcing Britain to throw in the towel, would be a pretty interesting outcome. Napoleon-fanboys would surely wank it to high heaven, but the more likely result is that France and its European vassals lose all power outside of Europe, and Britain becomes the oceanic hegemon to counter France's continental hegemon. (Ironically, the path Wilhelmine Germany should have aimed for.) This would probably be the lead up to a fundamental divergence between the Anglophone oceanic world-system, and the European(-and-eventually-Russian?) continental world-system. No more Western civilisation, but two successor civilisations, slowly growing further apart.

The oceanic High Culture, by contrast, has all sorts of advantages lined up. Irony of ironies: the most likely outcome of a Napoleonic victory, in the long term, is a massive Anglo-wank!

Pretty intriguing, at least on the macro-historical level, the true nature of which will make itself known centuries down the line. No doubt @Lord Sovereign would like this, especially since it's a bit more "realistic" about how mighty Napoleonic France would be compared to the sea-faring, far more world-spanning Great Britain — now the centerpiece of an "Anglo High Culture" consisting of Britain's colonies circling the globe.

Me being a Midwestern Yankee, I have to wonder what America's place in this probably is? Would guess the most likely outcome is that US hegemony is butterflied, once again rendering it more of a "Reserved Carthage" to the British Empire's "Super-Phoenicia" (similar to your "Conservatism triumphs in the 19th century!" outline).

Eventually, I suspect that despite remaining independent for another couple of centuries, the US will either be reabsorbed into the UK's holdings... or the center of gravity could gradually shift to the US itself, albeit more through soft power (e.g., a US economic boom once again enabling it to outcompete the UK) than OTL America's military buildup and Europe wrecking itself in the World Wars. In which case, I think what began as an "Anglo High Culture" could evolve into more of an "Anglo-American High Culture" as the American half becomes wealthier, more populated, and increasingly industrious throughout ATL 19th and 20th centuries. At least, assuming I'm not pasting too much of OTL America's good fortune onto things.

 

[ATP]

It's true that when I said "if it hadn't been [Prussia], it would've been one of the other North German states", the foremost candidate for the role would indeed be Saxony. This would in a sense be a vindication of their sense of their own destiny. They were the ones who made the Reformation political, so them becoming the founder of a Protestant-led, Northern-oriented German state that either excludes or subjugates Austria would be the crown on their work.

Of course, in OTL, they were rewarded for starting the whole mess by being out-competed and relegated to a pretty minor status, from which they never recovered. There's an ironic sort of justice in that, too (not that they viewed it that way).


...Napoleon establishing a true hegemony over Europe, eventually forcing Britain to throw in the towel, would be a pretty interesting outcome. Napoleon-fanboys would surely wank it to high heaven, but the more likely result is that France and its European vassals lose all power outside of Europe, and Britain becomes the oceanic hegemon to counter France's continental hegemon. (Ironically, the path Wilhelmine Germany should have aimed for.) This would probably be the lead up to a fundamental divergence between the Anglophone oceanic world-system, and the European(-and-eventually-Russian?) continental world-system. No more Western civilisation, but two successor civilisations, slowly growing further apart.

I don't think the Napoleonic dynasty would last all that long. You don't often get three or four capable emperors in a row, as the Maurya Empire shows us. It was all downhill after Ashoka. So probably, Europe would soon split into multiple feuding states again. Resurgent Russia as an equivalent to the Central Asian hordes that overran India? Could happen! Not good for the intellectual development of the continental High Culture, I think.

The oceanic High Culture, by contrast, has all sorts of advantages lined up. Irony of ironies: the most likely outcome of a Napoleonic victory, in the long term, is a massive Anglo-wank!

Napoleon in this scenario died on schedule in 1820,and Europe was ruled - in name of his son - by Metternich.
And,France & Austria was doing whatever they liked after that.

Russia collapsed,and tsar supporters fled to Alasca,so no hordes,at least not their hordes.Becouse Ottomans go wild there....Enslaving,mass murders,and impaling for important russian officials.

@Zyobot , i once read some story about succesfull England which:
1.Keep America
2.Defeat France,and made them british subjects
3.Beat russians even more in 1854.

I would told you,if i found source.

 

[Lord Sovereign]

As we often talk of successors and echoes of Rome, and the modern United States very much is that to some extent, a thought has occured to me.

France is oddly Roman, isn't it? After all, the last true Emperor in the West was a Frank.

 

[Zyobot]

As we often talk of successors and echoes of Rome, and the modern United States very much is that to some extent, a thought has occured to me.

France is oddly Roman, isn't it? After all, the last true Emperor in the West was a Frank.

What would France’s macro-historical role likely be, then, in terms of where it fits into the Western High Culture?

It may be a major European power, but I doubt it’ll overcome America’s bid for Western hegemony — much less all the boxes the US checks in being the West’s true counterpart to Rome. In fact, such a fate would call for France to become an American vassal, colony, or even state instead, which is far from being a viable competitor for the foreseeable future.