Sigismund actually had Luxemburg proper from 1388, - when he got it from Wenceslaus - to 1411, when he pawned it off to his niece, Elizabeth of Gorlitz because he defaulted on a loan. the map above, in 1400, shows Luxemburg, correctly, as part of sigismund's realm
Empires that never were
- Thread starter Gancio The Ranter
- Start date
Sigismund actually had Luxemburg proper from 1388, - when he got it from Wenceslaus - to 1411, when he pawned it off to his niece, Elizabeth of Gorlitz because he defaulted on a loan. the map above, in 1400, shows Luxemburg, correctly, as part of sigismund's realm
I appear to have fudged the details regarding Brandenburg (it was pawned as well), but I don't think I'm wrong about Luxembourg. The map (apart from being so small I had to look for a larger version) doesn't show what you say it shows. What it shows is that a member of the Luxembourg dynasty held Luxembourg during this period; which they did, in the form of Sigismund's cousin Jobst, who gained it in 1389.
The Luxembourg domains are a rat's nest in this period, I've found. I think it started off that Wenceslaus IV held Brandenburg and his half-uncle Wenceslaus I held Luxembourg. When Wenceslaus IV succeeded his father as king in 1378, Sigismund was given Brandenburg. Then, Sigismund pawned Brandenburg to Jobst in 1387 for Sigismund's Hungarian bid. Jobst became a pledge lord in Brandenburg in 1388 and was properly enfeoffed with it in 1397 by Wenceslaus IV. After Jobst's death in 1411, Sigismund got Brandenburg again, which he soon gave to the Hohenzollerns.
As for Luxembourg, Wenceslaus IV succeeded his half-uncle in Luxembourg in 1383, but soon after pawned it to Jobst in 1388 or 1389 (I get conflicting dates). When Wenceslaus IV's niece Elizabeth married Duke Anton of Brabant in 1409, he couldn't pay her dowry, and in place of one gave her the right to the lien on the Luxembourg loan. So when Jobst died in 1411, he and his wife Elizabeth inherited the lien itself and took possession of Luxembourg. Wenceslaus IV himself wouldn't die until 1419. Elizabeth, childless, agreed to sell Luxembourg to Burgundian Duke Philip in 1441, with the permission of Emperor Frederick III on the stipulation that Sigismund's grandson, Ladislaus the Posthumous could buy Luxembourg back at any time (which he never did).
Speaking of the HRE, if it had not decentralized so severely it could have been a very powerful player instead of degenerating into what is basically a punching bag for everyone, including itself (culminating in the 30 Years' War) you'd have a vastly different Europe today. Particularly if under the Habsburgs - all of Germany and the Netherlands + the entire Pannonian Basin + North Italy would be ludicrously overpowered. You could probably unite all of Europe this way.
tbf every Nordic country had a chance of being an overseas empire otl, but due to various problems they never succeeded. Or just the Kalmar Union consolidating and uniting all three Scandinavian countries would be a juggernaut capable of influencing the HRE, Poland and Russia and colonise North America, which would be a very interesting process. I do think there is a chance for Nordic ships to sail from Iceland to Greenland and to Quebec and Canada, down to New England and New York, and it'd dominate the Great Lakes already. If they go down to Louisiana and succeed in settling it the Brits will be boxed out. That's already an insane empire.
lol a Warrior Jesus figure in an alt Roman tl would be very interesting especially if the main religion in the rest of the Roman Empire isn't abrahamic in nature (like the cult of Isis or Mithras becoming the main religion or the Romans creating a regimented polytheistic religion like Hinduism or Buddhism).
My thoughts on Empires that never were are: Bactria or its descendant states conquering India and holding it, causing a fusion of Greek and Indian culture. The Greeks of the time were Buddhist (which are the origins of Buddha statues) and it'd be interesting how it changes things in India. Another Empire that never was is the Armenian empire under Tigranes the Great that basically held most of Eastern Anatolia. I do feel an Armenian renaissance from a conquerer that is conquering Muslim areas would make sense (or an assimilated mongol descended warlord a la timur). Another possibility is a surviving Georgian state that gets guns and conquers the Caucasus from the Muslims. Or the kingdom of Goguryeo, which is a korean kingdom which controlled all of Korea and significant parts of Manchuria. If it held its land the Manchurian bits would be Korean which would be really cool and interesting. The crusader states could be counted among the 'empires that didn't survive too'. I guess the Polish-Lithuanian commonwealth is another empire that never was, considering its territorial extent and how powerful it was. As was the Danslaw, as it'd be interesting if the Vikings managed to become the dominant culture of England. And if Lithuania didn't enter a personal union with Poland it still controlled a lot of land, it'd be interesting if it held Ukraine and colonised it.
The Habsburgs did not want to unify the HRE because they had interests outside the empire. If anyone is going to unify the HRE it would probably be house hohenstaufen.
I feel like many of the Frankish kingdoms, from the Merovingians on down, could have done a good job of keeping Europe unified if they hadn't insisted on dividing their kingdoms between their heirs.
In Jared's Lands of Red and Gold, you have Watjubaga that controls territory centered on the Murray River Valley. The Yadji of Victoria and even the Atjuntja Empire in Southwestern Australia.
If the Trastamara of Spain had remained in control of Iberia I feel the Habsburgs would have had a chance at unifying the HRE even keeping the Low countries inside the empire. A more focused Charles V might even strangle the Reformation in its cradle as german princes would not have had the chance to scheme against the Emperor while he was away
On a similar note, the Counts of Cilli were also well poised to establish a big dynastic "state" had they not died out.
-Pontus if the Social and Servile Wars were more devastating to Rome.
-Cortez goes rogue and unites Mesoamerica as his own empire
-the Italo-Normans with a bit more luck
-Cortez goes rogue and unites Mesoamerica as his own empire
-the Italo-Normans with a bit more luck
Sacer Bubonicus
Banned
The Tay Son dynasty of Vietnam.
Without French support, Nguyen Anh wouldn't have been able to overthrow them.
Alternatively, the Qing could've taken advantage of their second ruler's weakness and conquered Vietnam.
Without French support, Nguyen Anh wouldn't have been able to overthrow them.
Alternatively, the Qing could've taken advantage of their second ruler's weakness and conquered Vietnam.
Last edited:
Here are some that come to mind for me:
1. A Zanj success
The Zanj rebellion led by Ali ibn Muhammad al-Dibaj was a very powerful realm during the Anarchy of Samarra and had at its zenith in the 870s, control over all of southern Iraq, Ahwaz, the Nejd region of Arabia and control over the Hijaz region (loosely). Had this realm successfully managed to conquer Baghdad and or was lucky enough to have the Kharijite rebellion + maybe a Saffarid victory over the Abbasid, this domain could have become a very powerful entity over time. Ali ibn Muhammad Dibaj could in theory become a kind of messianic figure going forward uniting different heterodox sects of Islam under hos aegis and under the aegis of his immediate successors. In theory the 'Zanj' realm which would probably take the name of 'Imamate of Mukhtara' would become a kind of Arabo-Iraqi domain with a deep alliance with a class of freed slaves, Bedouin, Kharijite militants and Shi'a clergy. How long such a realm lasts is anyone's guess. The Abbasid would flee to Syria and probably submit as a vassal to the rising Tulunid state in Egypt. Meanwhile the Saffarid would resume conflict with the Imamate over Ahwaz and possibly over Mesopotamia itself.
2. Saffarid Neo-Persian Realm
Assuming the above scenario of Zanj victory and the establishment of an Imamate of Mukhtara, the Saffarid could be in position to create a long lasting Persian polity and possibly defeat the Imamate and conquer Mesopotamia, developing a sort of Neo-Sassanid border system. Saffarid position would be perfect for an alliance with the Tulunids against the Imamate in the center in fact and a victory by the Saffarid could see the rise of a Persianate Islamic ideal earlier than otl which truly began under the Great Seljuk.
3. Tulunid hegemony
The Tulunid ruling Egypt could quickly capture Syria and contest the Abbasid fleeing the Imamate and develop a powerful Egypto-Syrian domain, likely the new bastion of Sunni Islam in the region and the possibly the protector of the Abbasid Caliphate similar to the otl Mamluks, assuming they dominate the fleeing Abbasid in Syria. The Tulunid could then contest the Imamate of Mukhtara in northern Iraq and the Hijaz, leading to interesting wars between the two.
4. Qarmatian ascendancy
While the Imamate of Mukhtara, Tulunid and Saffarid battle, the Qarmatians could then likewise become a surging power northward or southward, creating a serious hegemony opposing all three and potentially becoming the ultimate victor in the entire conflict.
These above four present potential 4 potential realms that never situated themselves long from otl that could have quite easily become hegemons, even at the same time as the other three.
It depends. The Kingdom of Hatti was certainly destroyed by invading enemies to a degree, the Kaska and Muski and unknown assailants to its west were harming the kingdom and the Kaska-Muski captured Hattusa and forced the Hatti court to flee elsewhere, not to mention the Kaska and Muski destroyed the city of Ankuwa and in the past the Kaska had already conquered and destroyed the the sub-kingdom of Pala. If Hatti survived such strikes on it, it would have lost many of its allies to its south and would be decentralizing rapidly as loss of prestige would lead to princely autonomy south of Hattusa and Hatti. More importantly, the Kaska, Muski and peoples to the west will remain a threat, Hatti will need serious reforms to reascend in such a situation. Meanwhile, the Assyrians are still relatively strong and after the Assyrians-Karduniash defeat the Elamites, Tiglath-Pileser I will launch his campaigns into Syria and then into Anatolia and he may sack Hattusa and hence abolish that kingdom before it can reform. Maybe Hatti could ally with Assyria and or become its tributary and thus survive longer and become a rival of Assyria later.
Also and just finally, the post-Bronze Age Mid East was fragmented, but that does not mean it was easy to subdue. The Aramaen tribes and the many decentralized cities led by new Western Semitic tribal kings were perhaps more difficult to deal with than more sophisticated enemies who could be defeated and captured in battle and hence subdued in singular fell swoops like in the Bronze Age.
1. A Zanj success
The Zanj rebellion led by Ali ibn Muhammad al-Dibaj was a very powerful realm during the Anarchy of Samarra and had at its zenith in the 870s, control over all of southern Iraq, Ahwaz, the Nejd region of Arabia and control over the Hijaz region (loosely). Had this realm successfully managed to conquer Baghdad and or was lucky enough to have the Kharijite rebellion + maybe a Saffarid victory over the Abbasid, this domain could have become a very powerful entity over time. Ali ibn Muhammad Dibaj could in theory become a kind of messianic figure going forward uniting different heterodox sects of Islam under hos aegis and under the aegis of his immediate successors. In theory the 'Zanj' realm which would probably take the name of 'Imamate of Mukhtara' would become a kind of Arabo-Iraqi domain with a deep alliance with a class of freed slaves, Bedouin, Kharijite militants and Shi'a clergy. How long such a realm lasts is anyone's guess. The Abbasid would flee to Syria and probably submit as a vassal to the rising Tulunid state in Egypt. Meanwhile the Saffarid would resume conflict with the Imamate over Ahwaz and possibly over Mesopotamia itself.
2. Saffarid Neo-Persian Realm
Assuming the above scenario of Zanj victory and the establishment of an Imamate of Mukhtara, the Saffarid could be in position to create a long lasting Persian polity and possibly defeat the Imamate and conquer Mesopotamia, developing a sort of Neo-Sassanid border system. Saffarid position would be perfect for an alliance with the Tulunids against the Imamate in the center in fact and a victory by the Saffarid could see the rise of a Persianate Islamic ideal earlier than otl which truly began under the Great Seljuk.
3. Tulunid hegemony
The Tulunid ruling Egypt could quickly capture Syria and contest the Abbasid fleeing the Imamate and develop a powerful Egypto-Syrian domain, likely the new bastion of Sunni Islam in the region and the possibly the protector of the Abbasid Caliphate similar to the otl Mamluks, assuming they dominate the fleeing Abbasid in Syria. The Tulunid could then contest the Imamate of Mukhtara in northern Iraq and the Hijaz, leading to interesting wars between the two.
4. Qarmatian ascendancy
While the Imamate of Mukhtara, Tulunid and Saffarid battle, the Qarmatians could then likewise become a surging power northward or southward, creating a serious hegemony opposing all three and potentially becoming the ultimate victor in the entire conflict.
These above four present potential 4 potential realms that never situated themselves long from otl that could have quite easily become hegemons, even at the same time as the other three.
It depends. The Kingdom of Hatti was certainly destroyed by invading enemies to a degree, the Kaska and Muski and unknown assailants to its west were harming the kingdom and the Kaska-Muski captured Hattusa and forced the Hatti court to flee elsewhere, not to mention the Kaska and Muski destroyed the city of Ankuwa and in the past the Kaska had already conquered and destroyed the the sub-kingdom of Pala. If Hatti survived such strikes on it, it would have lost many of its allies to its south and would be decentralizing rapidly as loss of prestige would lead to princely autonomy south of Hattusa and Hatti. More importantly, the Kaska, Muski and peoples to the west will remain a threat, Hatti will need serious reforms to reascend in such a situation. Meanwhile, the Assyrians are still relatively strong and after the Assyrians-Karduniash defeat the Elamites, Tiglath-Pileser I will launch his campaigns into Syria and then into Anatolia and he may sack Hattusa and hence abolish that kingdom before it can reform. Maybe Hatti could ally with Assyria and or become its tributary and thus survive longer and become a rival of Assyria later.
Also and just finally, the post-Bronze Age Mid East was fragmented, but that does not mean it was easy to subdue. The Aramaen tribes and the many decentralized cities led by new Western Semitic tribal kings were perhaps more difficult to deal with than more sophisticated enemies who could be defeated and captured in battle and hence subdued in singular fell swoops like in the Bronze Age.
Nader Shah's mental health doesn't decline in the 1740s, he doesn't blind his most capable son Reza Qoli, and is able to fully establish the Afsharid Empire in Iran. We'd have a strong Iranian state from the mid 18th century that's able to take advantage of the declining Ottoman Empire and the falling Mughal Empire.
ooh this would be very interesting especially if they go into iraq fight the russians in central asia with the help of the british, and push into otl pakistan.
Nader Shah's mental health doesn't decline in the 1740s, he doesn't blind his most capable son Reza Qoli, and is able to fully establish the Afsharid Empire in Iran. We'd have a strong Iranian state from the mid 18th century that's able to take advantage of the declining Ottoman Empire and the falling Mughal Empire.
Eight Deer Jaguar Claw defeats Four Wind, thus uniting the Mixtec kingdoms into an empire that eventually gains hegemony over its corner of Mesoamerica.
The Normans win the Battle of Larissa in 1083, taking over Greece and perhaps even Constantinople itself.
The Normans win the Battle of Larissa in 1083, taking over Greece and perhaps even Constantinople itself.
This has potential to be an absolutely brilliant comedy TL! Imagine Cortez living it up like a Disney villain while being rued by Spain and dissuading Europe from colonialism (there's no point in going after gold if you can't trust the colonisers not to take everything for themselves), then realising he's in trouble because he doesn't have any blacksmiths and has to find some from a European country hostile to Spain. With a writer willing to not take themself too seriously, there is a lot of potential for hijinks here!
Thread tax:
Scotland tried to form a colonial empire with the Darien Scheme, which completely backfired and tanked the Scottish economy so hard it lost independence from England. Had Scotland found a more valuable spot to colonise, we may see the England/Scotland rivalry take on new heights in the new world.
I think there's a TL with that premise called The Navatlacas or something like that.
Courland (now a part of Latvia) had imperial ambitions and controlled Tobago on and off in the latter part of the 1600s.
Due to bad planning, I never got to see the Courlander monument when in Tobago.
Due to bad planning, I never got to see the Courlander monument when in Tobago.
I wonder how big the Sikh Empire could have gotten if they hadn't come up against the British. They were almost certainly, other than Mysore, the most advanced Indian Kingdom of the late 18th-early 19th century. Especially because the Marathas were fragmented by the time the British came.