Alternate capitals?
- Thread starter Colonel Levnekov
- Start date
-
- Tags
- capitals
In 1857 when the Queen chose Ottawa her other choices would have likely been Montreal, Toronto, Kingston or Niagara on the Lake. Toronto was a bit of a rump town, the others were French and/or too close to the USA border.
I wonder if London, Ontario was considered, in jest likely. It's in the unenviable position of being open to seaborne assault from two great lakes.
Reminds me of a CBC documentary film back in the Centennial celebrations in 1967, giving a rundown of Canadian history.
"Proponents of Ottawa as the capital claimed it would be safe from invasion. Unkind American critics agreed; no one, they said, would ever find it."
There was a short story of that time about a spy and his reflections on his life in the drab, dreary, frozen capital of a second-rate satellite nation. You guessed it.
The Geeks had always seen Constantinople as their capital; even when Athens became the capital it was regarded as temporary. The capture of Constantinople and the Greek majority coastland was the main aim of the Greeks when they attacked Turkey in 1919.
In Early Modern China, Kaifeng, Luoyang, Suzhou, and Nanjing are the most likely alternatives to Beijing. Hankou, Hangzhou, etc, are rather unlikely, and I think other cities like Xi'an or Guangzhou are extremely improbable. But remember that the importance of Beijing ultimately reflects the importance of northern steppe peoples in Chinese history; Beijing lies very close to the border between China and Mongolia. A southern capital like Nanjing or Suzhou means the continuation of Han Chinese rule. A northern capital on the Yellow River is still somewhat dodgy for Inner Asians, but they could establish themselves there at least for the legitimacy of the Tang/Song.
- Had the Jianwen emperor succeeded in "reducing the princes," it is likely that Nanjing would have continued as the capital of China. Had the Ming endured (after all, Beijing was a liability during the Ming collapse of the 1640s) Nanjing would be the capital of China and Beiping would be a provincial city like Kaifeng. However, I find it more likely that the Manchus or the Mongols would establish themselves in Beijing if they did conquer China; Nanjing is just too far south and the lower Yangzi is too urbanized for Inner Asians unaccustomed to the heat and urban diseases of the south.
- Alternately, the Hongwu emperor considered moving the capital to Kaifeng, since a united empire had never been ruled from the south and due to the legitimacy of the Song as the latest native dynasty. Had the emperor done so, and again if the princes were reduced or at least did not move the capital as the Yongle emperor did, Kaifeng would have been the undisputed capital of China after Tang collapse. Due to its more northern location the Manchus or Mongols might even keep the city as their capital if they conquer China ITTL (the Jurchen Jin, after all, dreamed of having Kaifeng as their capital). On the other hand, Kaifeng is difficult to properly defend and still a bit too deep into China.
- Had the Ming never prevailed, one of their three great enemies - the Mongols, the Han rebels, and the Zhou rebels - would have reunified the empire. The Mongols would have kept their capital in Beijing, so let's disregard them. In the case of the Han, their final capital was the city of Jiangzhou (now Jiujiang). Would it have been permanent? Probably not, since the Han moved the capital there to pressure the Ming. If the Han won the Battle of Boyang lake the capital would probably have been moved to somewhere with more resources and/or legitimacy, such as Kaifeng or Beijing, perhaps even Hangzhou. Even Hankou is a possibility if Chen Youliang (emperor of the Han) wants to conserve his connections to his rebel past, since Hankou was one of the first cities that his rebel group captured and their first capital (however, Hankou is rather isolated from the Canal and the eastern centers of China). Of course, this is just an educated guess.
- The Zhou are a different case. The Zhou were effectively the most faithful successor to the Southern Song and were dependent on the flourishing economy of the lower Yangzi and represented the worldview of the lower Yangzi elite. This suggests that at least the first Zhou emperor would keep his capital in Suzhou, the greatest city in the Yangzi delta. Perhaps they'd move north due to pressures from that side, but Suzhou could very well end up the permanent capital of China in a timeline where the Zhou are victorious, again with the caveat that China does not get conquered from the north. Note that Suzhou is also much harder to take for northern invaders than Beijing and to a lesser extent even Nanjing.
- Finally, if the Tang successor state wanted to emphasize their legitimacy, they might move the capital to Luoyang, the second Tang capital (by this point Xi'an is unsustainable and Shaanxi is a backwater; reunification from the south seems impossible in the 10th century). After all, Luoyang remained a vibrant center into Northern Song times. ITTL, Luoyang would really be a microcosm of China.
Couldn't a different reorganization of the Carolingian empire keep Aachen as the capital of France?
[EDIT: Wikipedia says: "If Louis II had inherited Lotharingia, Middle Francia would have been reunited. However, as Louis was at that time campaigning against the Emirate of Bari, Lotharingia was partitioned by and between his uncles Charles the Bald and Louis the German by the Treaty of Meerssen (870)." That sounds like a very easily butterfly-able event (though getting from there to "Aachen is the capital of France" might take some further complications).]
I basically agree for Russia - Petrograd is the obvious choice for a recent-ish POD, and with a medieval POD it could be just about anything in the Golden Ring area (but most likely Novgorod, Vladimir, or Tver). Or Kiev, I suppose.
Oddball choices: Pereyaslavets (on the Danube) if Sviatoslav gets even more lucky, and Lviv if the Kingdom of Ruthenia gets the "Russia" title and the assorted eastern states fail to unify (and/or unify under Novgorod which does not declare themselves Russia).
Can't really comment on most of the others, sorry.
What a Eurocentric view.
Paris takes up less than 20% of France's population, including its metropolitan area.
Seoul, including its metropolitan area, takes up a third of the population of the Korean peninsula as a whole and half of the population of South Korea. The metropolitan area of Tokyo takes up significantly more than 20% of Japan's population as well.
What he meant is that the French cultural/historic ties to Paris are unrivaled by no country (the only I can think right now is Italy with Rome).
The fact it gets a large share of the French population is just mark of it rather than the core of the issue.
Indonesia/Dutch East Indies
Bandung
Bogor/Buitenzorg (Before the administrative reform in 1920s that created "provincie", it was the de facto administrative capital of DEI)
Palangkaraya (Soekarno's proposed new capital in Kalimantan)
Yogyakarta (The capital of Indonesia during most of the Indonesian National Revolution)
Bandung
Bogor/Buitenzorg (Before the administrative reform in 1920s that created "provincie", it was the de facto administrative capital of DEI)
Palangkaraya (Soekarno's proposed new capital in Kalimantan)
Yogyakarta (The capital of Indonesia during most of the Indonesian National Revolution)
Well at least one of the prior posts mentioned Brazil and Australia, both of whom have "tailor-made" capital cities. Have Canberra and Brasilia never built and you'd have Melbourne/Sydney or Salvador/Rio de Janeiro as the capitals respectively.
Pakistan is another one of those countries. Rawalpindi was made the temporary capital whilst Islamabad was under construction. It's possible that if the Islamabad project got cancelled, that Rawalpindi could have stayed the capital through inertia. However, I'm inclined to believe that it's more likely that the capital would never be shifted from Karachi, which is the biggest seaport and the largest city. IIRC, a major motivation for moving it was defensibility, as some in the Pakistani government worried that the Indians might mount a seaborne invasion. If the capital must be moved, Lahore seems like the other city with the most history, legitimacy etc., and would reflect the disproportionate influence of Punjabis in Pakistan. The Lahore Resolution was the document through which Muhammad Ali Jinnah called for a Muslim homeland, so there's some specifically 'Pakistani' significance as well.
Tanga was Tanzania's (well, Tanganyika's) second-largest city, and if Dar es Salaam had never been founded, it would probably be the capital of Tanganyika/Tanzania/Whateveria.
New Zealand's capital could have stayed at Auckland, although I can't realistically see it stayed at Kororareka/Russell.
Pakistan is another one of those countries. Rawalpindi was made the temporary capital whilst Islamabad was under construction. It's possible that if the Islamabad project got cancelled, that Rawalpindi could have stayed the capital through inertia. However, I'm inclined to believe that it's more likely that the capital would never be shifted from Karachi, which is the biggest seaport and the largest city. IIRC, a major motivation for moving it was defensibility, as some in the Pakistani government worried that the Indians might mount a seaborne invasion. If the capital must be moved, Lahore seems like the other city with the most history, legitimacy etc., and would reflect the disproportionate influence of Punjabis in Pakistan. The Lahore Resolution was the document through which Muhammad Ali Jinnah called for a Muslim homeland, so there's some specifically 'Pakistani' significance as well.
Tanga was Tanzania's (well, Tanganyika's) second-largest city, and if Dar es Salaam had never been founded, it would probably be the capital of Tanganyika/Tanzania/Whateveria.
New Zealand's capital could have stayed at Auckland, although I can't realistically see it stayed at Kororareka/Russell.
"My Daichingtala" produced an excellent write-up of the Chinese alternative capitals.
The one thing I will add is that the earlier dynasties all were confronted with the problem that the area around Xian, which was the capital of the Qin kingdom, was in an excellent position for defense -particularly for control of the western steppe peoples- and in fact kingdoms based in that region conquered China several times. However, it was very difficult to feed the population of a large city in that area. The capital kept shifting to Louyang, the largest city in China at the time, and which was at the center of the Chinese transportation network and much easier to provision.
The later dynasties had a similar problem, do you have the capital at Beijing, which is best if you are worried about the northern steppe peoples, or your dynasty is drawn from the northern steppe peoples, or do you have it in someplace more central. Louyang itself is a perfectly good alternative capital.
One POD is that Mao choses someplace other than Beijing for his capital. After all, he could have picked just about anywhere and made it stick.https://www.alternatehistory.com/forum/members/my-daichingtala.94573/
The one thing I will add is that the earlier dynasties all were confronted with the problem that the area around Xian, which was the capital of the Qin kingdom, was in an excellent position for defense -particularly for control of the western steppe peoples- and in fact kingdoms based in that region conquered China several times. However, it was very difficult to feed the population of a large city in that area. The capital kept shifting to Louyang, the largest city in China at the time, and which was at the center of the Chinese transportation network and much easier to provision.
The later dynasties had a similar problem, do you have the capital at Beijing, which is best if you are worried about the northern steppe peoples, or your dynasty is drawn from the northern steppe peoples, or do you have it in someplace more central. Louyang itself is a perfectly good alternative capital.
One POD is that Mao choses someplace other than Beijing for his capital. After all, he could have picked just about anywhere and made it stick.https://www.alternatehistory.com/forum/members/my-daichingtala.94573/
Here are some comments on North America:
USA: If they go with the planned capital, it winds up in IOTL Washington because, well, its where Washington lives (just across the river) and the North-South split was already emerging as an issue and its just within the South. Path dependency then keeps it there. The center of the US population has for some time been closer to St. Louis (actually its now closer to Springfield), and Chicago is at the center of most transportation networks, but there is no plausible crisis that cold budge it from Washington. Even after a nuke attack by terrorists the place gets rebuilt. You need to engineer a second civil was in the twentieth century, which would probably involve nukes.
No planned capital means that the capital stays in Philadelphia, again because of path dependence. The main problem with Philadelphia is that the slaveholding federal officials had problems keeping their household slaves there once Pennsylvania abolished slavery, but of course that is the entire reason for the provision allowing Congress to create a separate federal district.
Canada: Good comments above, but if the capital stays in Montreal, its a very good POD for a timeline because it means the anglicization of Montreal, with lots of butterfly effects on Quebec.
Somewhat similarly, keep the capitals in Philadelphia/ Montreal/ Melbourne/ Rio de Janeiro instead of moving them to the planned cities, and you have a decent chance of these cities becoming as large and important as New York/ Toronto/ Sydney/ Brasilia.
Mexico: There are two ways to do this. Cortes decides not to rebuild Tenochtitlan, in which case the capital probably winds up in Puebla or maybe Tlaxcala. Or the Aztecs don't become the leading power on the plateau right before the Spanish arrive, in which case the capital could be anywhere on the plateau.
I just don't see alternative capitals for Cuba, or for all those small Central American and Caribbean countries.
USA: If they go with the planned capital, it winds up in IOTL Washington because, well, its where Washington lives (just across the river) and the North-South split was already emerging as an issue and its just within the South. Path dependency then keeps it there. The center of the US population has for some time been closer to St. Louis (actually its now closer to Springfield), and Chicago is at the center of most transportation networks, but there is no plausible crisis that cold budge it from Washington. Even after a nuke attack by terrorists the place gets rebuilt. You need to engineer a second civil was in the twentieth century, which would probably involve nukes.
No planned capital means that the capital stays in Philadelphia, again because of path dependence. The main problem with Philadelphia is that the slaveholding federal officials had problems keeping their household slaves there once Pennsylvania abolished slavery, but of course that is the entire reason for the provision allowing Congress to create a separate federal district.
Canada: Good comments above, but if the capital stays in Montreal, its a very good POD for a timeline because it means the anglicization of Montreal, with lots of butterfly effects on Quebec.
Somewhat similarly, keep the capitals in Philadelphia/ Montreal/ Melbourne/ Rio de Janeiro instead of moving them to the planned cities, and you have a decent chance of these cities becoming as large and important as New York/ Toronto/ Sydney/ Brasilia.
Mexico: There are two ways to do this. Cortes decides not to rebuild Tenochtitlan, in which case the capital probably winds up in Puebla or maybe Tlaxcala. Or the Aztecs don't become the leading power on the plateau right before the Spanish arrive, in which case the capital could be anywhere on the plateau.
I just don't see alternative capitals for Cuba, or for all those small Central American and Caribbean countries.
WhyUtrecht? I don't see any point in the history of the Netherlands when Utrecht would become the captital of the Netherlands, except when Louis Napolaeon became king of Holland and lived in Utrecht for a couple of months (just around the corner where I live actualy). But since he moved the captital around much, that is not a terribly good reason to single out Utrecht.
I really don't see Antwerp as a probable alternative capital to Belgium – or at least not to a Belgium that is similar to the one in OTL. Not only because it was never bestowed with functions typical for a capital city, but also because of its geography: it's just to close to the Dutch border – it remained in Dutch hands for two years after Belgian independence (which wasn't particularily popular in the town to begin with).
The least illogical alternative to Brussels with a POD ca. 1830 seems to be Liège – as it was second to Brussels in the presence of revolutionary/anti-Orangist presence. However, it is obviously not as central as Brussels, is particularily close to Prussia and what was to be the Dutch-Belgian border and never enjoyed a status as capital – so it would at best be a second option if say Brussels were to fall in Dutch hands. However, Orangist presence was presumably higher there than in Brussels (due to the closeness of modern industry) and perhaps more rattachist sympathies.
If an earlier POD is allowed, one could see Mechlin (I guess the old English name would remain in usage in the anglophone world) take the role of Brussels, as it was for some time the residence of the governor-general during the first half of the 16th century and remained the seat of the Great Council, one of the only centralized institutions of the (Southern) Netherlands, until the end of the Ancien Régime. Granted, by that time, many provinces (notably) had reclaimed their judicial sovereignt, but one can imagine that not being the case.
Montengro: the obvious candidate is Cetinje, although it has topographical issues making expension harder. The other alternative is Danilovgrad, especially if Podgorica and Nikšić are liberated later (or not at all). Becoming a capital was the whole point of founding the place to begin with.
For Sweden, it is hard to imagine something else than Stockholm as capital, it having been the centre of political power since around 1400. The much smaller town Örebro was temporary seat of parliament in 1809-10 when they were scared of a continued Russian attack, and if that mindset had continued it could very well have remained so.
Other potential capitals for Serbia are Kuršumlija, Kruševac, Smederevo, Topola, Gornja Crnuća, Kragujevac, possibly even Stari Ras or Sremska Mitrovica.
It could be that Middle Francia (~= Lotharingia) manages to stay around, with Aachen as the capital, and then ends up owning West Francia eventually. (Which is what I was going for in my previous post.) But I agree, it doesn't seem particularly likely. (EDIT: We might just as well try to have a continuing Angevin empire instead, the result would be similar.)
Or there could be a pre-843 POD and a division entirely different from OTL's West/Middle/East, in which case it's possible that the part with Aachen in it is mostly located in OTL France. But it could then hardly be identified with "France" anyway.