Discussion:
AHC: Napoleonic-sized/Hitler-sized hegemony in Europe between 1312 and 1812 AD
(too old to reply)
Rob
2018-03-21 00:19:33 UTC
Permalink
The challenge, should you choose to accept it, is to have a state from as early as 1312 AD and up to as late as the French Revolution have the kind of Europe-wide military dominance that he had and that Hitler later hand. One dominating political military force satellitizing or conquering everything between Britain and Russia.

Note- it does not have to be durable.

It can be as brief as the Nazi high-tide of 1941-1942, or the Napoleonic high-tide of 1807-1812. You can also have it be more lasting if you want.

However, somebody needs to get that far, even with all the technological, social, economic and geopolitical limits of the time.

So this ain't easy but I'm giving everyone a wide-span of time to work with. The natural candidates I would suspect would be France, or an HRE that centralizes or a Habsburg ensemble, but I am willing to entertain anything.
The Horny Goat
2018-03-21 02:42:35 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 20 Mar 2018 17:19:33 -0700 (PDT), Rob
Post by Rob
The challenge, should you choose to accept it, is to have a state from as early as 1312 AD and up to as late as the French Revolution have the kind of Europe-wide military dominance that he had and that Hitler later hand. One dominating political military force satellitizing or conquering everything between Britain and Russia.
Note- it does not have to be durable.
It can be as brief as the Nazi high-tide of 1941-1942, or the Napoleonic high-tide of 1807-1812. You can also have it be more lasting if you want.
However, somebody needs to get that far, even with all the technological, social, economic and geopolitical limits of the time.
So this ain't easy but I'm giving everyone a wide-span of time to work with. The natural candidates I would suspect would be France, or an HRE that centralizes or a Habsburg ensemble, but I am willing to entertain anything.
I would think the easiest way would be to have the Great Plague just
at the "right" time as the Mongols are invading. Mongols vs
Plantagenets at Hastings in 1366 - what say you to that? (Of course
Kim Stanley Robinson has already done something like that in Days of
Rice and Salt.

Alternately Grenada conquers France and keeps going.....given the size
of Europe it probably would take them that long to get all of Europe.

Or were you only considering a conquest of Europe by Europeans?

How about a Gustavus Adolphus fantasy scenario where he doesn't die
early?

Or a more successful Crusader state in Europe putting down the Teutons
and going further?

Or Poland-Lithuania get their act together and first conquer Prussia
then go on to the Rhine ... or further.

Or the Ottomans take Vienna and much more either in 1485, 1529 or
1683.

Just for starters...
Alex Milman
2018-03-21 17:03:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Horny Goat
On Tue, 20 Mar 2018 17:19:33 -0700 (PDT), Rob
Post by Rob
The challenge, should you choose to accept it, is to have a state from as early as 1312 AD and up to as late as the French Revolution have the kind of Europe-wide military dominance that he had and that Hitler later hand. One dominating political military force satellitizing or conquering everything between Britain and Russia.
Note- it does not have to be durable.
It can be as brief as the Nazi high-tide of 1941-1942, or the Napoleonic high-tide of 1807-1812. You can also have it be more lasting if you want.
However, somebody needs to get that far, even with all the technological, social, economic and geopolitical limits of the time.
So this ain't easy but I'm giving everyone a wide-span of time to work with. The natural candidates I would suspect would be France, or an HRE that centralizes or a Habsburg ensemble, but I am willing to entertain anything.
I would think the easiest way would be to have the Great Plague just
at the "right" time as the Mongols are invading.
Which happened in the XIII century, not XIV.
Post by The Horny Goat
Mongols vs
Plantagenets at Hastings in 1366 - what say you to that?
Providing you are not going to take it personally, I'll say that this is a complete and 100% nonsense. :-)

Besides existence of a natural obstacle (the Channel) by that time even the Golden Horde was falling apart. And idea of a sustained Mongolian conquest of the Central and Western Europe is plain silly. Their Western Campaign was just a big scale raid and none of the leaders (by the different but very serious reasons) was interested in a permanent conquest.

Not to mention that for a sustainable conquest would require trifles like a prolonged (more than a century) existence of a stable AND unified Mongolian empire and an absence of interest to a complete conquest of China (which was much more rewarding and resource-consuming). System of appanages established by Genghis Khan made split of the empire just a matter of a short time and "center of gravity" in China just accelerated this process.

Then, of course, you'd have to figure out how to provide a major Mongolian military presence in the areas not well-suited for a nomadic force.

Unlike China, there was no unified state (OK, couple states) in which you could establish a new dynasty and keep ruling traditional way (as Kublai did) using predominantly local or mercenary troops.
Post by The Horny Goat
(Of course
Kim Stanley Robinson has already done something like that in Days of
Rice and Salt.
Alternately Grenada conquers France and keeps going.....given the size
of Europe it probably would take them that long to get all of Europe.
They did not have enough people for such a conquest and, anyway, by the XIII the Moorish side was mostly on a defense in Spain.
Post by The Horny Goat
Or were you only considering a conquest of Europe by Europeans?
How about a Gustavus Adolphus fantasy scenario where he doesn't die
early?
His resources had been too limited for the task and he hardly could keep much more than the coastal areas of Baltic Sea.

But if you are talking about the 30YW how about more successful Wallenstein. Unlike GA, the Emperor and pretty much everybody else he had at least some "imperial idea" and prior to his forced retirement managed to establish imperial control over a big part of Germany (including the Catholic states) and presumably had over 100K troops. If he had a consistent support from the emperor, he could continue the process strengthening the imperial power to a degree excluding a serious contest. Of course, it would help if this was accompanied by an early death of Cardinal Richelieu and by GA's death (instead of just a wound) during the Swedish-Polish War.
Post by The Horny Goat
Or a more successful Crusader state in Europe putting down the Teutons
Prussians?
Post by The Horny Goat
and going further?
In which direction and with what resources?
Post by The Horny Goat
Or Poland-Lithuania get their act together and first conquer Prussia
then go on to the Rhine ... or further.
Union happened only in the XIV century and the Commonwealth was created only in mid-XVI due to the very specific set of the circumstances.

However, by the early XVII the Commonwealth could, in theory, raise a very powerful army (providing the Sejm agreed to pay for it) that could (and did) defeat a typical "pre-Gustavian" Western army with a reasonably low percentage of the firearms and cavalry not used to the attacks sword-in-hand. Of course, a sustainable conquest of a big chunk of the Western Europe would be unlikely due to the limitations of that model: as soon as their opponent could provide more effective fire (by increasing the numbers of musketeers), the whole thing was falling apart.
Post by The Horny Goat
Or the Ottomans take Vienna and much more either in 1485, 1529 or
1683.
Limitations of the Ottoman military system were hardly conductive to getting "much more" than in OTL. And by 1683 they were already noticeably behind their Western opponents as was demonstrated by the Austrian reconquest of Hungary following the Battle of Vienna.

Spain, while having for a while the best army in Europe, had been plagued by a systematic shortage of money which did not allow to have enough troops in the field for even crushing the rebellious provinces.



France would be a candidate in the early-modern times providing: (a) it does not have OTL internal problems and (b) it starts creating a modern national army well before OTL time frame and (c) it manages to make that army comparable in numbers to the armies of French Revolution and (d) it produces capable commanders with of "Napoleonic" style (not necessarily with his talents, just with his approach). At least France was the biggest (in population) and economically developed European state which in OTL by the late XVII could be balanced only by a coalition of other states.
Rob
2018-03-22 00:25:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alex Milman
Post by The Horny Goat
Or were you only considering a conquest of Europe by Europeans?
I pretty much was - but that's OK
Post by Alex Milman
Post by The Horny Goat
How about a Gustavus Adolphus fantasy scenario where he doesn't die
early?
His resources had been too limited for the task and he hardly could keep much more than the coastal areas of Baltic Sea.
But if you are talking about the 30YW how about more successful Wallenstein. Unlike GA, the Emperor and pretty much everybody else he had at least some "imperial idea" and prior to his forced retirement managed to establish imperial control over a big part of Germany (including the Catholic states) and presumably had over 100K troops. If he had a consistent support from the emperor, he could continue the process strengthening the imperial power to a degree excluding a serious contest. Of course, it would help if this was accompanied by an early death of Cardinal Richelieu and by GA's death (instead of just a wound) during the Swedish-Polish War.
Well Alex, what does maximum Wallenstein success look like? Imperial control of all imperial territory? Reduction of the effective sovereignty of the non-Habsburg princes of the HRE's states to the level enjoyed by say, Bavaria, in the second German Reich?

Counter-Reformation forced throughout the HRE, or long-term tolerance, or tactical, temporary tolerance, like the Edict of Nantes?

An HRE colonial and trading company and navy?

Would the HRE be able to avoid a final settlement allowing Swiss and Dutch independence, the way that Westphalia did?

Wider conquests?

Is strong and consistent support from the Emperor all that Wallenstein needs to kick ass?
Post by Alex Milman
Spain, while having for a while the best army in Europe, had been plagued by a systematic shortage of money which did not allow to have enough troops in the field for even crushing the rebellious provinces.
France would be a candidate in the early-modern times providing: (a) it does not have OTL internal problems and (b) it starts creating a modern national army well before OTL time frame and (c) it manages to make that army comparable in numbers to the armies of French Revolution and (d) it produces capable commanders with of "Napoleonic" style (not necessarily with his talents, just with his approach). At least France was the biggest (in population) and economically developed European state which in OTL by the late XVII could be balanced only by a coalition of other states.
That is a lot of things that have to go right, but I would think it would be the #1 prospect.

Your conditions are important ones. Some things that could give France a boost along the way could also be if they inherit all the Burgundian lands as a block, with none going to the Habsburgs.

Or, if they are the first to grab New World gold and silver.
Alex Milman
2018-03-22 16:20:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rob
Post by Alex Milman
Post by The Horny Goat
Or were you only considering a conquest of Europe by Europeans?
I pretty much was - but that's OK
Post by Alex Milman
Post by The Horny Goat
How about a Gustavus Adolphus fantasy scenario where he doesn't die
early?
His resources had been too limited for the task and he hardly could keep much more than the coastal areas of Baltic Sea.
But if you are talking about the 30YW how about more successful Wallenstein. Unlike GA, the Emperor and pretty much everybody else he had at least some "imperial idea" and prior to his forced retirement managed to establish imperial control over a big part of Germany (including the Catholic states) and presumably had over 100K troops. If he had a consistent support from the emperor, he could continue the process strengthening the imperial power to a degree excluding a serious contest. Of course, it would help if this was accompanied by an early death of Cardinal Richelieu and by GA's death (instead of just a wound) during the Swedish-Polish War.
Well Alex, what does maximum Wallenstein success look like? Imperial control of all imperial territory? Reduction of the effective sovereignty of the non-Habsburg princes of the HRE's states to the level enjoyed by say, Bavaria, in the second German Reich?
This would be too much to expect but he could achieve an overall imperial supremacy on a big part of the HRE up to a degree making effective military resistance unlikely. He was reasonably close to this, which made the imperial princes unhappy enough to demand his resignation in exchange for supporting the Hapsburg imperial succession. Basically, the mistake was the same as one that latter resulted in a War of the Austrian Succession: the Hapsburgs believed in a "due process" more than in military strength (in OTL Prince Eugene told the emperor that the money he spent on confirmation of the Pragmatic Sanction would be better spent on maintaining an army 140K strong; true to his statement, when this piece of paper proved to be meaningless, Austria had no army).
Post by Rob
Counter-Reformation forced throughout the HRE, or long-term tolerance, or tactical, temporary tolerance, like the Edict of Nantes?
With some adjustments related to the Church property the Hapsburgs were reconciled with an idea of having the Lutheran states.

The French parallel is not applicable: France was an unified kingdom while in the HRE we are talking about almost independent German states.
Post by Rob
An HRE colonial and trading company and navy?
Wallenstein was trying to build imperial navy and had a title "Admiral of the North and Baltic Seas" but he failed to take Stralsund which denied him access to the Baltic and the chance of challenging the naval power of the Scandinavian kingdoms and of the Netherlands.
Post by Rob
Would the HRE be able to avoid a final settlement allowing Swiss and Dutch independence, the way that Westphalia did?
The Dutch independence was Spanish business.
Post by Rob
Wider conquests?
Is strong and consistent support from the Emperor all that Wallenstein needs to kick ass?
Not only but this was critical because he was deprived of his command just when he build up a big army (allegedly up to 100K) and organized weaponry production on his own territories. He would need to work on organization and discipline of his troops but he already had at least a framework of the financial backup by forcing the imperial territories to pay.

He was not a brilliant tactician like GA but he was most probably a better strategist (at least Filedmarshal Montgomery thought so).

His cavalry definitely need a tactical improvement: unlike the Swedish cavalry, it was still relying upon the firepower and caracolle.

Infantry was seemingly using a slightly outdated tactics but was generally up to the task.

Artillery was inferior to the Swedish both numerically and in quality (and I'm not sure that he had a mobile artillery at all).

But with all these drawback and with a brand new army he had to create after being recalled from his retirement he managed to defeat the bigger army of GA in the Battle of the Alte Veste.
Post by Rob
Post by Alex Milman
Spain, while having for a while the best army in Europe, had been plagued by a systematic shortage of money which did not allow to have enough troops in the field for even crushing the rebellious provinces.
France would be a candidate in the early-modern times providing: (a) it does not have OTL internal problems and (b) it starts creating a modern national army well before OTL time frame and (c) it manages to make that army comparable in numbers to the armies of French Revolution and (d) it produces capable commanders with of "Napoleonic" style (not necessarily with his talents, just with his approach). At least France was the biggest (in population) and economically developed European state which in OTL by the late XVII could be balanced only by a coalition of other states.
That is a lot of things that have to go right,
Well, you are asking for a lot. :-)
Post by Rob
but I would think it would be the #1 prospect.
Actually, this would not be completely unrealistic. Creation of the French national army could start few decades earlier, for example during the reign of Henry IV or early in the reign of Louis XIII. It could start noticeably earlier even in OTL-like conditions because Richelieu started its creation only when he tried all the wrong options. His initial idea was NOT to create a French army but rather subsidize all anti-imperial forces. So he wasted a lot of money first on supporting the adventurers like Count Mansfield (who in "gratitude" looted the French territory when he was kicked out of Germany) and all the way to GA and his military successors who would take the money and then pursue their own goals. Then he hired an army of Bernard of Weimar (after he died) but the troops took money and went their way. Only when he run out of the available bad options (and found that there are no troops to defend France in the case of invasion) he slowly proceeded with building up a regular army based upon the national resources. Of course, true to his general pattern, he put it under command of the Duke of Enghien (future Great Conde) who was married to his niece and proved to be a great tactician but had no taste to the boring administrative and organizational work leaving it to the subordinates. Every winter (when the fighting season was over) he was abandoning his troops to travel to Paris and its entertainments.

Richelieu would do much better by giving this position to Turenne who was a REAL general in all necessary aspects (not surprisingly, during the Fronde, the troops had been following him rather than Conde).

As a result, by the time Louis XIV started his de facto reign (after regency of his mother was over) he inherited a mess and it took years to convert it into the most powerful army in Europe but it was slightly too late (or too early :-)).

In ATL France could have a powerful army on the early stages of the 30YW when the situation was very close to a power vacuum. The only serious military competitor would be Spain but, if a new French army was created with the usage of the existing Dutch experience and using the French economic advantages over Spain (ability to produce more firearms with a resulting greater firepower of the troops AND an ability to pay regularly), this issue could be resolved rather fast (with the help of the Dutch troops) leaving France the biggest bully in the Western and Central Europe.

Note that the "social conditions" in France changed little over this time span so there was no valid reason for NOT starting recruiting the French nationals much earlier.
Post by Rob
Your conditions are important ones. Some things that could give France a boost along the way could also be if they inherit all the Burgundian lands as a block, with none going to the Habsburgs.
Would be nice but not really necessary: Louis XIV managed to create the most powerful army in Europe without this condition.
Post by Rob
Or, if they are the first to grab New World gold and silver.
They did not need anything of the kind: in OTL Charles V, with all his American gold and silver had been routinely running out of funds earlier than his opponent, Francis I.
The Horny Goat
2018-03-23 03:44:36 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 21 Mar 2018 17:25:09 -0700 (PDT), Rob
Post by Rob
Wider conquests?
Is strong and consistent support from the Emperor all that Wallenstein needs to kick ass?
I would think simply a lack of imperial paranoia.
Post by Rob
Post by Alex Milman
France would be a candidate in the early-modern times providing: (a) it does not have OTL internal problems and (b) it starts creating a modern national army well before OTL time frame and (c) it manages to make that army comparable in numbers to the armies of French Revolution and (d) it produces capable commanders with of "Napoleonic" style (not necessarily with his talents, just with his approach). At least France was the biggest (in population) and economically developed European state which in OTL by the late XVII could be balanced only by a coalition of other states.
If you're suggesting Louis XIV I'm sceptical.
Alex Milman
2018-03-23 18:32:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Horny Goat
On Wed, 21 Mar 2018 17:25:09 -0700 (PDT), Rob
Post by Rob
Wider conquests?
Is strong and consistent support from the Emperor all that Wallenstein needs to kick ass?
I would think simply a lack of imperial paranoia.
Post by Rob
Post by Alex Milman
France would be a candidate in the early-modern times providing: (a) it does not have OTL internal problems and (b) it starts creating a modern national army well before OTL time frame and (c) it manages to make that army comparable in numbers to the armies of French Revolution and (d) it produces capable commanders with of "Napoleonic" style (not necessarily with his talents, just with his approach). At least France was the biggest (in population) and economically developed European state which in OTL by the late XVII could be balanced only by a coalition of other states.
If you're suggesting Louis XIV I'm sceptical.
Agree. Louis XIV is (a) a little bit too late and (b) more than a little bit too incompetent militarily (and even his best generals are not up to the task of the quasi-Napoleonic intimidation of Europe).

While (a) is still not quite critical, (b) was a killer. If we allow him to be a little bit more "Napoleonic" then, with the OTL armies, there should be a conquest of the Spanish Netherlands and the Dutch Republic as the 1st step (plausible if done energetically and it will make the future British participation much more difficult). Then conquest of the territories West of the Rhine AND doing something to make French alliance attractive for the lesser German states. Perhaps a big-scale campaign against the Austrian Hapsburgs as a result of which some of the major German princes are getting lands and higher titles.

Of course, this would require some changes in the OTL French army of Louis XIV but not too drastic ones.
Rob
2018-03-23 23:29:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alex Milman
Post by The Horny Goat
On Wed, 21 Mar 2018 17:25:09 -0700 (PDT), Rob
Post by Rob
Wider conquests?
Is strong and consistent support from the Emperor all that Wallenstein needs to kick ass?
I would think simply a lack of imperial paranoia.
Post by Rob
Post by Alex Milman
France would be a candidate in the early-modern times providing: (a) it does not have OTL internal problems and (b) it starts creating a modern national army well before OTL time frame and (c) it manages to make that army comparable in numbers to the armies of French Revolution and (d) it produces capable commanders with of "Napoleonic" style (not necessarily with his talents, just with his approach). At least France was the biggest (in population) and economically developed European state which in OTL by the late XVII could be balanced only by a coalition of other states.
If you're suggesting Louis XIV I'm sceptical.
Agree. Louis XIV is (a) a little bit too late and (b) more than a little bit too incompetent militarily (and even his best generals are not up to the task of the quasi-Napoleonic intimidation of Europe).
While (a) is still not quite critical, (b) was a killer. If we allow him to be a little bit more "Napoleonic" then, with the OTL armies, there should be a conquest of the Spanish Netherlands and the Dutch Republic as the 1st step (plausible if done energetically and it will make the future British participation much more difficult). Then conquest of the territories West of the Rhine AND doing something to make French alliance attractive for the lesser German states. Perhaps a big-scale campaign against the Austrian Hapsburgs as a result of which some of the major German princes are getting lands and higher titles.
Of course, this would require some changes in the OTL French army of Louis XIV but not too drastic ones.
Alright, so we've got a couple good scenarios, the Wallenstein and the French one.

The French one is more fleshed out so far, because Alex has thought of how it could match Napoleon's specific moves.

If either of these came about in the 1600s, what would be England's ability to defy France, or sponsor a coalition against it? Or, put another way and channelling Alex, could England arrange for a bunch of continental suckers to fight for its interests? Could England blockade the continent?

If the alternate France tried to impose a "Continental System" while England tried a blockade, which side would come out worse for wear, France or England?

It seems to me that in OTL the failure of the continental system and success of the British blockade against Napoleon, and the failure of European autarky compared to blockade during both of the 20th century German wars, "proved" that after 1800, global trade was more important than intra-European. Would this have been the case in the 1500s, 1600s or 1700s?
Alex Milman
2018-03-24 15:16:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rob
Post by Alex Milman
Post by The Horny Goat
On Wed, 21 Mar 2018 17:25:09 -0700 (PDT), Rob
Post by Rob
Wider conquests?
Is strong and consistent support from the Emperor all that Wallenstein needs to kick ass?
I would think simply a lack of imperial paranoia.
Post by Rob
Post by Alex Milman
France would be a candidate in the early-modern times providing: (a) it does not have OTL internal problems and (b) it starts creating a modern national army well before OTL time frame and (c) it manages to make that army comparable in numbers to the armies of French Revolution and (d) it produces capable commanders with of "Napoleonic" style (not necessarily with his talents, just with his approach). At least France was the biggest (in population) and economically developed European state which in OTL by the late XVII could be balanced only by a coalition of other states.
If you're suggesting Louis XIV I'm sceptical.
Agree. Louis XIV is (a) a little bit too late and (b) more than a little bit too incompetent militarily (and even his best generals are not up to the task of the quasi-Napoleonic intimidation of Europe).
While (a) is still not quite critical, (b) was a killer. If we allow him to be a little bit more "Napoleonic" then, with the OTL armies, there should be a conquest of the Spanish Netherlands and the Dutch Republic as the 1st step (plausible if done energetically and it will make the future British participation much more difficult). Then conquest of the territories West of the Rhine AND doing something to make French alliance attractive for the lesser German states. Perhaps a big-scale campaign against the Austrian Hapsburgs as a result of which some of the major German princes are getting lands and higher titles.
Of course, this would require some changes in the OTL French army of Louis XIV but not too drastic ones.
Alright, so we've got a couple good scenarios, the Wallenstein and the French one.
The French one is more fleshed out so far, because Alex has thought of how it could match Napoleon's specific moves.
Obviously, the German scenario can not be "napoleonic" in its moves except for the ultimate goal of having a single dominating European power.
Post by Rob
If either of these came about in the 1600s, what would be England's ability to defy France, or sponsor a coalition against it?
You have to be more specific about your dates. Under the Stuarts England was pretty much non-existent as a military factor (an attempt to help the French Protestants was pathetic and it could not help to Jackob's son in law or make it "visible" during the 30YW) and then it was busy for a while with its civil war. So you are talking about the 2nd half of the XVII.

German (Wallenstein) scenario assumes strong imperial power in the HRE but not the unified Germany. There is a big army financed by the German states but answerable only to the emperor instead of a token "imperial army" of OTL. Even if French military power is increasing, it has to compete with the imperial power for the European dominance. England hardly can be a decisive factor in that schema.

Earlier "Napoleonic" France. As you may notice, it starts with the conquest of the Netherlands & Belgium so many of the OTL factors (including William of Orange) do not exist and the same goes for the lesser financial abilities (just England vs. England + Netherlands), lesser naval abilities and an absence of a convenient landing territory (the Netherlands). Not sure if England of the late XVII could finance coalitions to a degree comparable to OTL XIX century or if there would be too many willing candidates if French policy in Germany is one I described (make enough of the German princes interested in French alliance).
Post by Rob
Or, put another way and channelling Alex, could England arrange for a bunch of continental suckers to fight for its interests?
If these "suckers" are beneficiaries of the French policies, why would they switch the sides? The Dutch are gone. Brandenburg is just a distant raising power which is nowhere close to Prussia of Frederic II (and France may get it on its side by NOT supporting the Swedes and not making a fuss over its still quite modest expansionism). Hanover and perhaps few more German states would not make too much of a difference militarily and can be checked by the French allies (expecting to benefit at their expense). There are still Austrian Hapsburgs but on their own they do not count for too much especially if France manages to play Ottoman card better than in OTL.
Post by Rob
Could England blockade the continent?
Nope. In OTL French navy had been for quite a while successfully fighting against the British AND Dutch navies and here the Dutch naval resources at least partially are in the French disposal.

Not that a naval blockade was at that time very important for the continental trade (neither was it critically important even in the Napoleonic times) and, of course, such an attempt would provide England with quite a few new enemies: Danish and Swedish navies were a considerable force in the XVII.
Post by Rob
If the alternate France tried to impose a "Continental System" while England tried a blockade, which side would come out worse for wear, France or England?
IMHO, the whole thing simply would not have too much sense in mid-XVII. On BOTH sides. England was not yet a critical supplier of the manufactured products or "colonial goods". OTOH, it did not yet depend too much on the import of the raw materials from the main OTL "sucker", Russian Empire (which was not around, anyway).
Post by Rob
It seems to me that in OTL the failure of the continental system and success of the British blockade against Napoleon,
and the failure of European autarky compared to blockade during both of the 20th century German wars, "proved" that after 1800, global trade was more important than intra-European.
Define "intra-European". Russia (or at least its relevant part) was "European" but by the obvious reason Russian and Swedish trade with Britain happened over the seas.

As for the rest, the ways to bypass the restrictions on the British imports into the continent had been found even before formal creation of the Continental System and the same goes for the smuggling of the French goods into Britain or the British-Russian trade. Caulaincourt was openly objecting to Nappy making too much fuss over the Russian-British "tricks" because he was using pretty much the same methods to bypass his own restrictions.
Post by Rob
Would this have been the case in the 1500s, 1600s or 1700s?
AFAIK, the answer is "no" at least for the 1600s (and in the 1500s England was just a little bit more than a nuisance and definitely NOT the dominating sea power).
The Horny Goat
2018-03-24 23:35:03 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 24 Mar 2018 08:16:57 -0700 (PDT), Alex Milman
Post by Alex Milman
You have to be more specific about your dates. Under the Stuarts England was pretty much non-existent as a military factor (an attempt to help the French Protestants was pathetic and it could not help to Jackob's son in law or make it "visible" during the 30YW) and then it was busy for a while with its civil war. So you are talking about the 2nd half of the XVII.
German (Wallenstein) scenario assumes strong imperial power in the HRE but not the unified Germany. There is a big army financed by the German states but answerable only to the emperor instead of a token "imperial army" of OTL. Even if French military power is increasing, it has to compete with the imperial power for the European dominance. England hardly can be a decisive factor in that schema.
Earlier "Napoleonic" France. As you may notice, it starts with the conquest of the Netherlands & Belgium so many of the OTL factors (including William of Orange) do not exist and the same goes for the lesser financial abilities (just England vs. England + Netherlands), lesser naval abilities and an absence of a convenient landing territory (the Netherlands). Not sure if England of the late XVII could finance coalitions to a degree comparable to OTL XIX century or if there would be too many willing candidates if French policy in Germany is one I described (make enough of the German princes interested in French alliance).
I am mystified how you get an England (or Great Britain) to be an
important force on the European mainland during 1600-1750.

That was the very beginning of the British mercantile era which was
abased on naval not land issues. There never was anything remotely
resembling a British "Hansa" - any suggestion that "Britannia" would
ever rule (at least in Europe) more than "the waves" would have been
ludicrous.

A scenario where Britain remains as important on the continent as it
was at Agincourt is interesting but would be a completely different
Europe. Most likely such a scenairo means England holds western France
while Burgundy retains it's importance and independence. In short -
definitely not "ASB" territory but equally definitely a VERY VERY
different Europe from what we know.
Alex Milman
2018-03-25 01:48:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Horny Goat
On Sat, 24 Mar 2018 08:16:57 -0700 (PDT), Alex Milman
Post by Alex Milman
You have to be more specific about your dates. Under the Stuarts England was pretty much non-existent as a military factor (an attempt to help the French Protestants was pathetic and it could not help to Jackob's son in law or make it "visible" during the 30YW) and then it was busy for a while with its civil war. So you are talking about the 2nd half of the XVII.
German (Wallenstein) scenario assumes strong imperial power in the HRE but not the unified Germany. There is a big army financed by the German states but answerable only to the emperor instead of a token "imperial army" of OTL. Even if French military power is increasing, it has to compete with the imperial power for the European dominance. England hardly can be a decisive factor in that schema.
Earlier "Napoleonic" France. As you may notice, it starts with the conquest of the Netherlands & Belgium so many of the OTL factors (including William of Orange) do not exist and the same goes for the lesser financial abilities (just England vs. England + Netherlands), lesser naval abilities and an absence of a convenient landing territory (the Netherlands). Not sure if England of the late XVII could finance coalitions to a degree comparable to OTL XIX century or if there would be too many willing candidates if French policy in Germany is one I described (make enough of the German princes interested in French alliance).
I am mystified how you get an England (or Great Britain) to be an
important force on the European mainland during 1600-1750.
Well, strictly speaking it was important for the duration of the War of the Spanish Succession. Its own forces had been quite limited so it was probably a financial part of the equation which made Marlborough commander in chief of the allied forces.
Post by The Horny Goat
That was the very beginning of the British mercantile era which was
abased on naval not land issues. There never was anything remotely
resembling a British "Hansa" - any suggestion that "Britannia" would
ever rule (at least in Europe) more than "the waves" would have been
ludicrous.
Or at least far fetched.
Post by The Horny Goat
A scenario where Britain remains as important on the continent as it
was at Agincourt
At Agincourt and in the 100YW in general its importance was pretty much limited to France (plus couple adventures in Spain).
Post by The Horny Goat
is interesting but would be a completely different
Europe. Most likely such a scenairo means England holds western France
while Burgundy retains it's importance and independence.
And is in a lasting alliance with England. Even then, the influence remains only within a limited region (France). Not to mention that military system which for a while gave English a winning edge had serious limitations which resulted in the defeats in 2 final battles of the 100YW. Or, if you wish to be more "materialistic" (:-)), most of the time the French side (except for the cases of an extreme turmoil) was in a better financial situation (aka, had all 3 components necessary for conduct of a war).
Post by The Horny Goat
In short -
definitely not "ASB" territory but equally definitely a VERY VERY
different Europe from what we know.
Yes.
Rob
2018-03-25 15:14:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alex Milman
Obviously, the German scenario can not be "napoleonic" in its moves except for the ultimate goal of having a single dominating European power.
It would be interesting to see the Wallenstein scenario play out over the long, long term though. In its founding I guess it would make the HRE capable of fending off foreign intervention (French, Swedish, Dutch, Turkish, Danish, Polish, Russian) in a way the OTL HRE was not.

I wonder what a plausible path for it advancing from strength to strength, bossing around some of those very neighbors, over time would look like.


snippage-
Post by Alex Milman
German (Wallenstein) scenario assumes strong imperial power in the HRE but not the unified Germany. There is a big army financed by the German states but answerable only to the emperor instead of a token "imperial army" of OTL. Even if French military power is increasing, it has to compete with the imperial power for the European dominance.
Post by Rob
It seems to me that in OTL the failure of the continental system and success of the British blockade against Napoleon,
and the failure of European autarky compared to blockade during both of the 20th century German wars, "proved" that after 1800, global trade was more important than intra-European.
Define "intra-European". Russia (or at least its relevant part) was "European" but by the obvious reason Russian and Swedish trade with Britain happened over the seas.
As for the rest, the ways to bypass the restrictions on the British imports into the continent had been found even before formal creation of the Continental System and the same goes for the smuggling of the French goods into Britain or the British-Russian trade. Caulaincourt was openly objecting to Nappy making too much fuss over the Russian-British "tricks" because he was using pretty much the same methods to bypass his own restrictions.
I would define "intra-European" as overland trade in Europe, or coastwise trade between countries on the continent that may not be subject to interdiction on any meaningful scale.

It is simply notable that despite the large population, production and market of France, and of areas it satellitized in Germany and Italy and the Low Countries, British and overseas trade was during the Napoleonic era was more important than trade with the core of Europe for countries on the periphery of Europe like Russia, Portugal and Spain. I mean, isn't this what underlay Britain's ability to forge coalition after coalition, while France could not entice those countries into permanent, willing alliance?

The Napoleonic era showed the British economy could keep building ships, guns and financing coalitions perpetually. Yes there was smuggling trade even between Britain and France, but the fact that the loss of France, the Low Countries and Germany as legal markets did not harm Britain more is remarkable. A century or two earlier, the loss of the Low Countries' market for English wool for instance would have been a bigger economic blow I would think.
Alex Milman
2018-03-25 17:25:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rob
Post by Alex Milman
Obviously, the German scenario can not be "napoleonic" in its moves except for the ultimate goal of having a single dominating European power.
It would be interesting to see the Wallenstein scenario play out over the long, long term though. In its founding I guess it would make the HRE capable of fending off foreign intervention (French, Swedish, Dutch, Turkish, Danish, Polish, Russian) in a way the OTL HRE was not.
I wonder what a plausible path for it advancing from strength to strength, bossing around some of those very neighbors, over time would look like.
The MAIN premise for this scenario is to provide Austrian Hapsburgs with what they did NOT have: the most powerful army in Germany (and, ideally, in Europe). Wallenstein was trying to accomplish something of the kind but failed due to a number of reasons one of the most important of which being the Hapsburgs themselves. Ferdinand II simply could not grasp a seemingly obvious idea that if he is by far the most powerful ruler in the HRE, he can FORCE the electors to vote for anyone he chooses as his successor. Instead he traded Wallenstein's retirement for the votes he could reasonably easily get. This seems to be a family trait: in the XVIII century Charles III wasted his limited funds on bribing the German rulers into agreeing to the Pragmatic Sanction, which proved to be a worthless piece of paper, while ignoring advice of Prince Eugene to use money for building an army.

2nd problem with Ferdinand & Co was extreme unwillingness to acknowledge the existing situation and to grant the Protestant rulers (preferably both Lutheran and Calvinists) an authority over the religious affairs on their territories (without imperial attempts to restore property of the Catholic Church, etc.). This would kill most of the Protestant opposition (and its support of the foreign invaders).

To diminish unhappiness of the German rulers the emperor could do some territorial readjustments in favor of the bigger states and upgrade the titles of their rulers. Again, this would require certain mental flexibility which OTL Hapsburgs were routinely lacking.


If Wallenstein is not sacked practically at the peak of his success (there was a drawback with Stralsund but the naval affairs could wait) and allowed to operate notwithstanding the complaints of the German princes (both Catholics and Protestants) then in few years there is a powerful (at least as far as the numbers involved) imperial army stationed all over the HRE and maintained by the "taxes" imposed on the German states. The only thing necessary is to make it "institutional" instead of being linked to Wallenstein's personality. With a little bit of patience this could be achieved by supplying him with the capable deputies and not rushing the events.

As for the foreign interventions, I'm not sure when the HRE was invaded by the Dutch but the Danish invasion was repelled by Wallenstein in OTL, the Swedes would be lacking the OTL support in Germany and, instead of facing almost complete power vacuum (only Tilly and his army) they'd have to face an opponent vastly superior in numbers (in OTL in both his encounters with W GA had a numeric advantage plus advantage of the old troops over a newly-assembled army and he still lost one). Not sure why and how exactly the Commonwealth would invade the HRE (usually they were allies) and as for the Russian invasions, I'm not sure if there were any prior to 1914 :-).

This leaves France and the Ottomans. Both would have to deal with a much stronger opponent.




[]
Post by Rob
Post by Alex Milman
Post by Rob
It seems to me that in OTL the failure of the continental system and success of the British blockade against Napoleon,
and the failure of European autarky compared to blockade during both of the 20th century German wars, "proved" that after 1800, global trade was more important than intra-European.
Define "intra-European". Russia (or at least its relevant part) was "European" but by the obvious reason Russian and Swedish trade with Britain happened over the seas.
As for the rest, the ways to bypass the restrictions on the British imports into the continent had been found even before formal creation of the Continental System and the same goes for the smuggling of the French goods into Britain or the British-Russian trade. Caulaincourt was openly objecting to Nappy making too much fuss over the Russian-British "tricks" because he was using pretty much the same methods to bypass his own restrictions.
I would define "intra-European" as overland trade in Europe, or coastwise trade between countries on the continent that may not be subject to interdiction on any meaningful scale.
OK. Then the XVII is predominantly "intra-European" and, anyway, England is not an overwhelming naval power.
Post by Rob
It is simply notable that despite the large population, production and market of France, and of areas it satellitized in Germany and Italy and the Low Countries, British and overseas trade was during the Napoleonic era was more important than trade with the core of Europe for countries on the periphery of Europe like Russia, Portugal and Spain.
I mean, isn't this what underlay Britain's ability to forge coalition after coalition, while France could not entice those countries into permanent, willing alliance?
In the case of Russia and Sweden it was rather simple: Britain was the main importer of their products.

Of course, your theory does not explain the case of Austria which was not seriously engaged in any overseas trade even with Britain by the obvious reasons. Prussia also is not a quite convincing example. :-)
Post by Rob
The Napoleonic era showed the British economy could keep building ships, guns and financing coalitions perpetually.
As long as government could keep increasing state debt. With all related brouhaha, the Napoleonic Wars were not such a prolonged affair (less than two decades) and the Continental System was even a shorter one (started only in 1806, IIRC).

French expenses also had been huge (raising and maintaining the huge armies was not cheap) but when the dust settled their finances were (AFAIK) in a relatively good order.
Post by Rob
Yes there was smuggling trade even between Britain and France, but the fact that the loss of France, the Low Countries and Germany as legal markets did not harm Britain more is remarkable.
Not too remarkable: I'm not sure if the British economic presence was excessively strong in Germany of the late XVIII - early XIX and Russian market was not completely lost even between 1806 and 1812. Plus Britain already had rather extensive colonial markets.
Post by Rob
A century or two earlier, the loss of the Low Countries' market for English wool for instance would have been a bigger economic blow I would think.
AFAIK, there were prolonged wars between England and the Dutch in the XVII century so perhaps export of the wool was not too critical by that time.
The Horny Goat
2018-03-23 03:42:34 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 21 Mar 2018 10:03:24 -0700 (PDT), Alex Milman
Post by Alex Milman
Post by The Horny Goat
I would think the easiest way would be to have the Great Plague just
at the "right" time as the Mongols are invading.
Which happened in the XIII century, not XIV.
Sorry I missed your mention of the XIVth as the start point.
Post by Alex Milman
Post by The Horny Goat
Mongols vs
Plantagenets at Hastings in 1366 - what say you to that?
Providing you are not going to take it personally, I'll say that this is a complete and 100% nonsense. :-)
Of course I was being silly - though sillier scenarios have been
seriously discussed here.
Post by Alex Milman
Besides existence of a natural obstacle (the Channel) by that time even the Golden Horde was falling apart. And idea of a sustained Mongolian conquest of the Central and Western Europe is plain silly. Their Western Campaign was just a big scale raid and none of the leaders (by the different but very serious reasons) was interested in a permanent conquest.
To a certain extent I was channelling Days of Rice & Salt.
Post by Alex Milman
Not to mention that for a sustainable conquest would require trifles like a prolonged (more than a century) existence of a stable AND unified Mongolian empire and an absence of interest to a complete conquest of China (which was much more rewarding and resource-consuming). System of appanages established by Genghis Khan made split of the empire just a matter of a short time and "center of gravity" in China just accelerated this process.
Post by The Horny Goat
(Of course
Kim Stanley Robinson has already done something like that in Days of
Rice and Salt.
Alternately Grenada conquers France and keeps going.....given the size
of Europe it probably would take them that long to get all of Europe.
They did not have enough people for such a conquest and, anyway, by the XIII the Moorish side was mostly on a defense in Spain.
True though I figured with my reference to a later Great Plague...
Post by Alex Milman
Post by The Horny Goat
Or were you only considering a conquest of Europe by Europeans?
How about a Gustavus Adolphus fantasy scenario where he doesn't die
early?
His resources had been too limited for the task and he hardly could keep much more than the coastal areas of Baltic Sea.
But if you are talking about the 30YW how about more successful Wallenstein. Unlike GA, the Emperor and pretty much everybody else he had at least some "imperial idea" and prior to his forced retirement managed to establish imperial control over a big part of Germany (including the Catholic states) and presumably had over 100K troops. If he had a consistent support from the emperor, he could continue the process strengthening the imperial power to a degree excluding a serious contest. Of course, it would help if this was accompanied by an early death of Cardinal Richelieu and by GA's death (instead of just a wound) during the Swedish-Polish War.
I agree that would be more plausible than a Gustavus Adolphus dream
scenario.
Post by Alex Milman
Post by The Horny Goat
Or the Ottomans take Vienna and much more either in 1485, 1529 or
1683.
Limitations of the Ottoman military system were hardly conductive to getting "much more" than in OTL. And by 1683 they were already noticeably behind their Western opponents as was demonstrated by the Austrian reconquest of Hungary following the Battle of Vienna.
Probably one of the more interesting items was how much territory the
Turks lost in the 25 years after 1683.

Of the various scenarios offered I would think the Wallenstein
scenario would be the most plausible.
Alex Milman
2018-03-23 17:46:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Horny Goat
On Wed, 21 Mar 2018 10:03:24 -0700 (PDT), Alex Milman
Post by Alex Milman
Post by The Horny Goat
I would think the easiest way would be to have the Great Plague just
at the "right" time as the Mongols are invading.
Which happened in the XIII century, not XIV.
Sorry I missed your mention of the XIVth as the start point.
This is Rob's thread, not mine. :-)
Post by The Horny Goat
Post by Alex Milman
Post by The Horny Goat
Mongols vs
Plantagenets at Hastings in 1366 - what say you to that?
Providing you are not going to take it personally, I'll say that this is a complete and 100% nonsense. :-)
Of course I was being silly - though sillier scenarios have been
seriously discussed here.
Of course, any ISOT-type scenario is sillier by definition.
Post by The Horny Goat
Post by Alex Milman
Besides existence of a natural obstacle (the Channel) by that time even the Golden Horde was falling apart. And idea of a sustained Mongolian conquest of the Central and Western Europe is plain silly. Their Western Campaign was just a big scale raid and none of the leaders (by the different but very serious reasons) was interested in a permanent conquest.
To a certain extent I was channelling Days of Rice & Salt.
Did not read that book but it is "Years", not "Days" and it seems to be about Timur who, while having some Mongolian roots (or claiming to have them) and following the formal rules established by Genghis (and as a result always having a title inferior to "Khan") had little to do with the Mongolian conquests (except for destroying the Golden Horde).

I'd say, even less chances because he was an _individual_ conqueror and quite old by the time he got into the Eastern European territories (Volga area). So simply would not have enough time for a substantial European (as in "Central & Western Europe") conquest. Even his operations on Volga had been seemingly at the far end of his logistics.
Post by The Horny Goat
Post by Alex Milman
Not to mention that for a sustainable conquest would require trifles like a prolonged (more than a century) existence of a stable AND unified Mongolian empire and an absence of interest to a complete conquest of China (which was much more rewarding and resource-consuming). System of appanages established by Genghis Khan made split of the empire just a matter of a short time and "center of gravity" in China just accelerated this process.
Post by The Horny Goat
(Of course
Kim Stanley Robinson has already done something like that in Days of
Rice and Salt.
Alternately Grenada conquers France and keeps going.....given the size
of Europe it probably would take them that long to get all of Europe.
They did not have enough people for such a conquest and, anyway, by the XIII the Moorish side was mostly on a defense in Spain.
True though I figured with my reference to a later Great Plague...
But it was hitting everyone.
Post by The Horny Goat
Post by Alex Milman
Post by The Horny Goat
Or were you only considering a conquest of Europe by Europeans?
How about a Gustavus Adolphus fantasy scenario where he doesn't die
early?
His resources had been too limited for the task and he hardly could keep much more than the coastal areas of Baltic Sea.
But if you are talking about the 30YW how about more successful Wallenstein. Unlike GA, the Emperor and pretty much everybody else he had at least some "imperial idea" and prior to his forced retirement managed to establish imperial control over a big part of Germany (including the Catholic states) and presumably had over 100K troops. If he had a consistent support from the emperor, he could continue the process strengthening the imperial power to a degree excluding a serious contest. Of course, it would help if this was accompanied by an early death of Cardinal Richelieu and by GA's death (instead of just a wound) during the Swedish-Polish War.
I agree that would be more plausible than a Gustavus Adolphus dream
scenario.
But, thanks to the German Protestant writers/historians, "Lion of the North" had been made into a giant historic figure which he probably was not. It seems that he did not have a clear "imperial idea" besides making Baltic Sea into the Swedish Lake. Task, which he could not completely accomplish and successful part of which eventually led to the disastrous GNW. A little bit lesser greed and a little bit better foresight would tell him that leaving Muscovite state with an outlet on the Baltic coast will change little in the terms of trade and income (Riga would still be a much more important port and the Russians would not conduct overseas trade in a foreseen future) while eliminating many future problems.

But even the short-term political goals of his operations in Germany, was leaving his admirers somewhat puzzled because there was seemingly none (besides looting and "glory").
Post by The Horny Goat
Post by Alex Milman
Post by The Horny Goat
Or the Ottomans take Vienna and much more either in 1485, 1529 or
1683.
Limitations of the Ottoman military system were hardly conductive to getting "much more" than in OTL. And by 1683 they were already noticeably behind their Western opponents as was demonstrated by the Austrian reconquest of Hungary following the Battle of Vienna.
Probably one of the more interesting items was how much territory the
Turks lost in the 25 years after 1683.
Yes. Advantages of the Western-style armies (with the competent leaders) became quite obvious.

Of course, later in the XVIII it was also proven that any existing advantages can be "compensated" by the Austrian generals. :-)
Post by The Horny Goat
Of the various scenarios offered I would think the Wallenstein
scenario would be the most plausible.
I also like it most even if it would require a lot of preconditions including not very realistic ones, like intelligent Hapsburg emperors. :-)

But I'd not discount the earlier French scenario either because it involves an EXISTING strong unified state and mostly requires an absence of the mistakes which could easily be avoided. Of course, it does not assume French conquest of Germany (at least to the East of the Rhine), just (a) establishing of the fact that France is the biggest bully on the block and (b) creation of a meaningful coalition of pro-French German states to minimize power of the anti-French coalitions. Well, conquest of the Netherlands (both Spanish AND the Dutch Republic) with a partial absorption and making the rest into a vassal kingdom (like in OTL) would be both realistic and helpful.
Loading...