Most Realistic POD?
- Thread starter Anaxagoras
- Start date
Most of those were horribly outnumbered. Witht he exception of the ARW. I sincerely think that England thought she was getting rid of a liability by not commiting more troops.
I also think similar about the war of 1812.
Also another one not on the list was the Ottomans taking Austria, and the Huns sacking Rome. Both appear to be divinely mandated by not happening.
I also think similar about the war of 1812.
Also another one not on the list was the Ottomans taking Austria, and the Huns sacking Rome. Both appear to be divinely mandated by not happening.
Did Hannibal not take Rome after Cannae because he couldn't, or because he didn't prefer to? The two major factors that prevented Carthage's defeat over Rome was the loyalty of the Italian peninsula (which he hoped to convert) and Hannibal's inablility to conduct a siege on Rome. Is that right?
The English Civil war was a damned close affair. By rights, the king *should* have won, Charles really was his own second-worst enemy.
Carthage had only a limited chance at success given the Roman alliance system it was up against. The Romans could just commit greater resources. Though the first one could have worked out well for the Punic side, it was a miracle Hannibal lasted as long as he did.
The ARW - muchly like the Civil war, except that the British government was, if anything, more inept and less emotional. But once war started, I don't think their chances at winning were *that* good in the long run, their victory would have been containing the confrontation and defusing wider issues.
Central Powers victory - depends on your definition of 'victory'. Going out with salvaged pride and avoiding surrender would have been a possibility well into 1917, (and 1918, had it not been for the US). But a full victory, as in 'all strategic goals reached', was unlikely in so evenly matched a slugfest.
I don't see any of the others as very likely, though I guess the CSA *could* have played on northern war-weariness...
Carthage had only a limited chance at success given the Roman alliance system it was up against. The Romans could just commit greater resources. Though the first one could have worked out well for the Punic side, it was a miracle Hannibal lasted as long as he did.
The ARW - muchly like the Civil war, except that the British government was, if anything, more inept and less emotional. But once war started, I don't think their chances at winning were *that* good in the long run, their victory would have been containing the confrontation and defusing wider issues.
Central Powers victory - depends on your definition of 'victory'. Going out with salvaged pride and avoiding surrender would have been a possibility well into 1917, (and 1918, had it not been for the US). But a full victory, as in 'all strategic goals reached', was unlikely in so evenly matched a slugfest.
I don't see any of the others as very likely, though I guess the CSA *could* have played on northern war-weariness...
Max Sinister
Banned
I voted for Whites winning in Russia. The Bolsheviks had Moscow and St Petersburg, but not too much else, and everyone else against them. Theoretically the Whites should've won...
King Thomas
Banned
The Royalists winning.If they had struck at London as quickly as possible, they could have taken it and won.
Carthage wins Punic Wars, Christians win the Crusades, Napoleon wins Napoleonic Wars, Axis wins World War II all require a lucky break by the loser on OTL because they were facing a economically stronger opponent who could afford the big battalions. I am not saying that was no possible, but hs I had been asked to chose the most likely, I went for victory for the Central Powers.
Max Sinister
Banned
I didn't really think of it, but... in a WI book I read that there were about a dozen possible PODs in the ARW for the Brits to win. Many battles are among them - Bunker Hill, Trenton, in fact almost every important one.
And the CP winning WW1... only if the US stay out. Even then, it's hard enough.
And the CP winning WW1... only if the US stay out. Even then, it's hard enough.
The French winning the Seven Years War would have only required a Tsarina survivin a few more months, or a young Tsar less fascinated by Prussian uniforms.
Max Sinister
Banned
Then Prussia would've lost in Europe, but in America and India, Britain had already won. Britain could keep what it got and give up Hannover for it, or exchange part of the conquests for it.
*Shudder*Max Sinister said:
The thing about the Russian civil war was that the Reds didn't just have Moscow and St Petersburg; they had the major portion of Russian industrial power at their disposal. They also had much wider general support from the Russian populace. They also had fantastic logistical support and a single defensible region.
The Whites, while surrounding the Reds, were spread out and not unified. They were poorly supplied and had little support from the citizenry. They ranged from monarchists, to military officers bent on installing a dictatorship, to opposition socialist parties. They were as likely to fight each other as they were the reds. The most successful group was the Czech Legion in the East, but they gave up fighting when they realised that they'd get a new homeland
Add into this the Greens, the nationalist groups, who were the best locally supported, but were far too small. They fought both the Reds and the Whites, and got pounded by both.
It's not really that close a match, in the end.
P.S. I voted for CP victory
Max Sinister
Banned
Yes, that's the point: The opponents of the Reds were split up. United they should've been stronger - in free elections, the Bolsheviks barely got a majority, and only in Moscow and St Petersburg. Of course, that meant that they had most of the Russian industry. And Lenin had promised them peace, bread and land... nobody had something better to offer.
And I still wondered what had happened if the Whites had promised the people at least a few reforms (or better, actually implemented them)
And I still wondered what had happened if the Whites had promised the people at least a few reforms (or better, actually implemented them)
My vote goes for Napoleon wins napoleonic war.
Of course, it depends on your definition of winning. Invasion of England is unlikely without a pretty early PoD ( or extremely unlikely event : eg Nelson goes french ).
But continuous rule by himself or his heir, that's easy. Either Napoleon is less ambitious ( read hubristic ) or he dies anytime between 1802 and 1812.
Of course, it depends on your definition of winning. Invasion of England is unlikely without a pretty early PoD ( or extremely unlikely event : eg Nelson goes french ).
But continuous rule by himself or his heir, that's easy. Either Napoleon is less ambitious ( read hubristic ) or he dies anytime between 1802 and 1812.