AH Recurring Tropes, and the timelines that avert or subvert them

Wait, so whats your take on this map?

View attachment 574087
Orange: The State of Pangasinan ruled by Lord Lin Feng
Red-Brown: the Kingdom of Tondo ruled by Batan Dula
Light Yellow: Rajah of Maynila ruled by Rajah Sulayman
Light Purple: Sultanate of Brunei ruled by Saiful Rijal Bolkiah
Green: Confederacy of Madvas
Salmon: Cebu ruled by Rajah Bantug II
Cream: Maguindanao ruled Sultan Bangkaya
Light Brown: Sultanate of Lanao
Teal: Rajahnate of Butuan
Dark Orange: Sultanate of Sulu ruled by Sultan Muhammad ul-Halim Hashemite

"Well, as far states go there wasn't much I could find without going into speculation. The rulers of Cebu and Tondo are speculative, Batan is at least a son of Bunao, also known as Lakan Dula, with Cebu I'm using the name of a prior ruler because I have no idea if this person has children or what names I could use. "

I used this in my TL, where things go south, and the Spanish do not colonize the Philippines, what exactly would you make of this map, in terms of an attempt at accuracy? I'm not exactly aware of too many powers in the north of Luzon Island, but this region isn't my strong suit nor could I find easily readable sources in English, when it's my only language.
For Luzon you can create any ruler name, with any indian/malay name...who could unite the states in Luzon not having the Philippines remain uncolonized would cause Limahong's invasion of Pangasinan to be butterflied, if he still arrives Limahong will sack Manila and establish himself there paving a way for a Hindu/Pagan power taking over the island at a later point.
 
For Luzon you can create any ruler name, with any indian/malay name...who could unite the states in Luzon not having the Philippines remain uncolonized would cause Limahong's invasion of Pangasinan to be butterflied, if he still arrives Limahong will sack Manila and establish himself there paving a way for a Hindu/Pagan power taking over the island at a later point.
I was using this map as more of a theoretical baseline, although I think I had Limahong repelled from Manila anyway. I used Limahong there an excuse for a Japanese conquest of Pangasinan to eventually create a Japanese Philippines something close to OTL Hokkaido in colonization, but with more cultural and religious differences to be taken into account, that it becomes a mixtures of peoples and perhaps own distinct administration.
 
At last i'm pretty annoyed by the "nomad go conquered" trope once firearms start to be used, i mean, yeah the sedentarians gained some sort of advantage but it wasn't as lopsided (or as inevitable!) as people make it be, for example, the Tatar Khanates were hardly inevitably going to be conquered by russian polities, even if Russia itself is united, IOTL they put up a significant fight well into the age of gunpowder (in the case of Kazan using gunpowder themselves) and it was a pretty near-run thing, IMO you get that lopsided vision from the mid-to-late 18th century, when the Crimean Khanate had two giant armies vanished in the defensive by a much lesser numbered russian army, even though like, 40-50 years before the crimeans were defeating larger russian armies during the crimean and azov campaigns of the Great Turkish War.
Nomad go conquered was less about army composition or even gunpowder, as it was Muscovy and it's kind of symbiotic relationship with the Tartar states come the decline of the Golden Horde. Basically Tartar politics saw several khans basically backed by Muscovy against their rival claimants. Kazan in particular might own existence to Muscovite aid. Crimea was more the exception to most Tartar states just because of long it lasted and the Ottoman support it recieved, even if the Ottomans also meddled with succession in the Khanate just like Muscovy did with some other states.
 
Confederate Kentucky. If you're going to do it, please address the reasons why it didn't happen in OTL. It wasn't just the CSA violating Kentucky's proclaimed neutrality. Even before that the state had voted to remain in the Union. People along the Ohio River, which was the most densely populated part felt a great deal of kinship towards the midwest, especially Ohio and Indiana and to a lesser extent Illinois. Also Louisville, like the midwest had a large population of ethnic Germans. The feelings of the mountain men in the Appalachian part of the state were similar to those of the mountain men of what would become West Virginia. Those more sympathetic to the Confederate cause came from the southern half of the state, closer to Tennessee.

More united Germany. Includes Austria. Presumably Lichtenstein and Luxembourg too, but Austria's the big one, especially if they also get Sudetenland with it. You have to somehow address the Hohenzollern vs Habsburg issue. The strong male preference in semi-Salic inheritence makes this difficult to do by marriage, not to mention the Protestant vs Catholic issue. You'd have to have one of them be subordinate to the other, have them go republican, or if going the marriage route have one or both adopt a system of inheritance with less male preference and have someone convert or otherwise reach some arrangement over the Catholic vs Protestant issue.

The notion that trade makes warm fuzzy friendships inevitable. It doesn't. It can certainly help, but it's no guarantee. Taft tried that with dollar diplomacy. It was a failure. Some people will point to American trade with Britain and WWI. Although Britain was the USA's biggest trading partner at the start, their 2nd biggest trading partner (before the near-total blockade) was Germany. In the present day, the USA and China are each other's biggest trading partners, and most certainly not close friends.

Speaking of Germany, I hate it when they're seen as just a bunch of proto-Nazis, no matter how far back the setting or POD is, or the notion that a victorious Imperial Germany can't liberalize.
 
Confederate Kentucky. If you're going to do it, please address the reasons why it didn't happen in OTL. It wasn't just the CSA violating Kentucky's proclaimed neutrality. Even before that the state had voted to remain in the Union. People along the Ohio River, which was the most densely populated part felt a great deal of kinship towards the midwest, especially Ohio and Indiana and to a lesser extent Illinois. Also Louisville, like the midwest had a large population of ethnic Germans. The feelings of the mountain men in the Appalachian part of the state were similar to those of the mountain men of what would become West Virginia. Those more sympathetic to the Confederate cause came from the southern half of the state, closer to Tennessee.

More united Germany. Includes Austria. Presumably Lichtenstein and Luxembourg too, but Austria's the big one, especially if they also get Sudetenland with it. You have to somehow address the Hohenzollern vs Habsburg issue. The strong male preference in semi-Salic inheritence makes this difficult to do by marriage, not to mention the Protestant vs Catholic issue. You'd have to have one of them be subordinate to the other, have them go republican, or if going the marriage route have one or both adopt a system of inheritance with less male preference and have someone convert or otherwise reach some arrangement over the Catholic vs Protestant issue.

The notion that trade makes warm fuzzy friendships inevitable. It doesn't. It can certainly help, but it's no guarantee. Taft tried that with dollar diplomacy. It was a failure. Some people will point to American trade with Britain and WWI. Although Britain was the USA's biggest trading partner at the start, their 2nd biggest trading partner (before the near-total blockade) was Germany. In the present day, the USA and China are each other's biggest trading partners, and most certainly not close friends.

Speaking of Germany, I hate it when they're seen as just a bunch of proto-Nazis, no matter how far back the setting or POD is, or the notion that a victorious Imperial Germany can't liberalize.
I think the more united Germany... could also be seen in this thread? https://www.alternatehistory.com/forum/threads/feasibility-of-grossdeutchland.487923/
In my timeline Jefferson's Anti-Slavery Crisis, a version of this exists, but that's due to a more successful Revolutions of 1848 equivalent removing the Hohenzollerns due to the army joining the rebels... Austria's monarchy also collapsed I think. (I will go update that a bit more if that's what people want).

Thanks for that. And Germany does eventually liberalize, it's just I am not done writing them yet.
 
As a brazilian this always get me on because geographically speaking there's no sense in a country with the brazilian coastline (including Brazil) even passing beyond the coastline, the coastline is a tropical mild forest, past that you have a steppe-but-more-arid (Cerrado) with a damn mountain range separating it, while past the steppe then you have the Amazon, which is a tropical equatorial forest nearly unreachable by land in pre-contemporary standards. Even IOTL the portuguese colonization of the Amazon was a separate thing from the colonization of the rest of Brazil, and it was actually its own colony until mid-late in the colonial period.

Don't wanting to self-promote but doing it anyway, i expect to avert this trope in Vive Les Marquis, even though France until now is doing great, the next chapter (which i'm currently working in) will present the first real challenge to its hegemony, i think it's really a bit off the fact that sometimes only because something starts good it necessarily will continue good, i honestly prefer stories when the reader is offered a gradual transformation from worse to better in a way where when you reach the "better" you can really feel it naturally by reading.

Some tropes that annoy me greatly are the "inevitable force of nationalism" once you reach the 19th century, independently of any local circumstances that IOTL resulted in the triumph of nationalism being averted directly or indirectly in the ATL, people forget that nationalism wasn't near to be universal, this especially concerning Austria-Hungary and the Ottoman Empire. Somewhat related is the lack of multicultural polities, in the sense that the polity itself is an integration of the cultures it conquers, independently if clearly there's a "dominant" culture (or if there's not), since these happened to form quite constantly IOTL, i at least happen to see the "dominant" culture over-emphasized what leads to the other cultures who happen to be similarly integrated being forgotten. At last i'm pretty annoyed by the "nomad go conquered" trope once firearms start to be used, i mean, yeah the sedentarians gained some sort of advantage but it wasn't as lopsided (or as inevitable!) as people make it be, for example, the Tatar Khanates were hardly inevitably going to be conquered by russian polities, even if Russia itself is united, IOTL they put up a significant fight well into the age of gunpowder (in the case of Kazan using gunpowder themselves) and it was a pretty near-run thing, IMO you get that lopsided vision from the mid-to-late 18th century, when the Crimean Khanate had two giant armies vanished in the defensive by a much lesser numbered russian army, even though like, 40-50 years before the crimeans were defeating larger russian armies during the crimean and azov campaigns of the Great Turkish War.
Thank you! Esp re: "the inevitable force of nationalism" bit... I've gone into this on other threads at length, perhaps somewhat to the annoyance of others :p
 
Confederate Kentucky. If you're going to do it, please address the reasons why it didn't happen in OTL. It wasn't just the CSA violating Kentucky's proclaimed neutrality. Even before that the state had voted to remain in the Union. People along the Ohio River, which was the most densely populated part felt a great deal of kinship towards the midwest, especially Ohio and Indiana and to a lesser extent Illinois. Also Louisville, like the midwest had a large population of ethnic Germans. The feelings of the mountain men in the Appalachian part of the state were similar to those of the mountain men of what would become West Virginia. Those more sympathetic to the Confederate cause came from the southern half of the state, closer to Tennessee.

More united Germany. Includes Austria. Presumably Lichtenstein and Luxembourg too, but Austria's the big one, especially if they also get Sudetenland with it. You have to somehow address the Hohenzollern vs Habsburg issue. The strong male preference in semi-Salic inheritence makes this difficult to do by marriage, not to mention the Protestant vs Catholic issue. You'd have to have one of them be subordinate to the other, have them go republican, or if going the marriage route have one or both adopt a system of inheritance with less male preference and have someone convert or otherwise reach some arrangement over the Catholic vs Protestant issue.

The notion that trade makes warm fuzzy friendships inevitable. It doesn't. It can certainly help, but it's no guarantee. Taft tried that with dollar diplomacy. It was a failure. Some people will point to American trade with Britain and WWI. Although Britain was the USA's biggest trading partner at the start, their 2nd biggest trading partner (before the near-total blockade) was Germany. In the present day, the USA and China are each other's biggest trading partners, and most certainly not close friends.

Speaking of Germany, I hate it when they're seen as just a bunch of proto-Nazis, no matter how far back the setting or POD is, or the notion that a victorious Imperial Germany can't liberalize.
Gaaah WHY does EVERYONE want to unite Austria with Germany??? :p
Also, kudos on that last sentence. Why a post 1918-1919 German Empire would inevitably descend into jack-booted thuggery always baffles me...
 
Because people love Großdeutschland that they forget that Prussian led German unification likely wouldn't lead to Großdeutschland.

If you really want Großdeutschland either have the Habsburgs at the helm, or at the least in a first among equals position, or have someone else like a republican movement do it.
 
Nomad go conquered was less about army composition or even gunpowder, as it was Muscovy and it's kind of symbiotic relationship with the Tartar states come the decline of the Golden Horde. Basically Tartar politics saw several khans basically backed by Muscovy against their rival claimants. Kazan in particular might own existence to Muscovite aid. Crimea was more the exception to most Tartar states just because of long it lasted and the Ottoman support it recieved, even if the Ottomans also meddled with succession in the Khanate just like Muscovy did with some other states.
unless the nomadic group adopts gunpoweder and atillery like the manchus or has an ally that has gunpoweder weapons like the tartars and ottomans , it would most time loose gunpowder really negates most nomadic style of warfare the russsians it really does so the fall of nomadic armies unless the execeptions i mentioned where pretty much invatble when the guns started to get better.
forts plus guns are really good counter to minor raids
 
I was using this map as more of a theoretical baseline, although I think I had Limahong repelled from Manila anyway. I used Limahong there an excuse for a Japanese conquest of Pangasinan to eventually create a Japanese Philippines something close to OTL Hokkaido in colonization, but with more cultural and religious differences to be taken into account, that it becomes a mixtures of peoples and perhaps own distinct administration.
Except Luzon/Selurong is not like Hokkaido or Taiwan like people who do TL's here like make since it has its own nobility/elite even prior to the Spanish came and is part of the Malay world, you can do your own TL in the way you like it.
 
unless the nomadic group adopts gunpoweder and atillery like the manchus or has an ally that has gunpoweder weapons like the tartars and ottomans , it would most time loose gunpowder really negates most nomadic style of warfare the russsians it really does so the fall of nomadic armies unless the execeptions i mentioned where pretty much invatble when the guns started to get better.
forts plus guns are really good counter to minor raids
IMO isn't that it isn't true (as i said, the foundations of this are in the crimean defeats against Russia), and yes because "nomad go conquered" is used in a pretty deterministic and ignorant-from-what-really-happened-IOTL way, it's really used in order to explain in a overly grossly simplified way a much complex history. It ignores that the first Khanate to be conquered (Kazan Khanate) was actually using advanced artillery and gunpowder weapons from early on and due to that managed to hold russian pressure for a whole century of hostilities, and "nomad go conquered" also doesn't take into account that the main reason for the downfall of the tatar khanates was an lack of establishment resulting from the vassalize-unvassalize stuff (Kazan initially was full hostile towards Moscow, around 1500 turned into a vassal and later on full hostile again), in fact those which survived longer didn't adopted gunpowder in a intense way, the Crimean Khanate (including minor subject hordes like Yedisan) was using traditional nomadic light cavalry until the late 18th century for example, and they were largely holding on their own against Russia until then. Apart from the Crimean case, "nomad go conquered" was a minor component of the conquest of the tatar polities, with the major component being like always, politics.
 
IMO isn't that it isn't true (as i said, the foundations of this are in the crimean defeats against Russia), and yes because "nomad go conquered" is used in a pretty deterministic and ignorant-from-what-really-happened-IOTL way, it's really used in order to explain in a overly grossly simplified way a much complex history. It ignores that the first Khanate to be conquered (Kazan Khanate) was actually using advanced artillery and gunpowder weapons from early on and due to that managed to hold russian pressure for a whole century of hostilities, and "nomad go conquered" also doesn't take into account that the main reason for the downfall of the tatar khanates was an lack of establishment resulting from the vassalize-unvassalize stuff (Kazan initially was full hostile towards Moscow, around 1500 turned into a vassal and later on full hostile again), in fact those which survived longer didn't adopted gunpowder in a intense way, the Crimean Khanate (including minor subject hordes like Yedisan) was using traditional nomadic light cavalry until the late 18th century for example, and they were largely holding on their own against Russia until then. Apart from the Crimean case, "nomad go conquered" was a minor component of the conquest of the tatar polities, with the major component being like always, politics.
i also stated unless they had an ally with gunpowder the crimean khanate had the ottomans who had for a time the best gunpowder based army in the world ,and the crimeans really depended on the turks in various aspects
sure they raided deep in to russia but there is the case of the battle of Molodi where figting at close proximity and the heavy use of artillery destroyed the small turkish and large tartar force

The decline of the Crimean Khanate was a consequence of the weakening of the Ottoman Empire and a change in Eastern Europe's balance of power favouring its neighbours

" the Crimean Khanate (including minor subject hordes like Yedisan) was using traditional nomadic light cavalry until the late 18th century " yes and by 1699 peter the great had turned the crimean khanate in to an insignificant power that went from rading deep even reaching moscow to essently a rotten state that would be the equivalent of saying the 14th century byzantine empire was holding its own just because russia did not kill it in 1699 does not mean that it was some how holding its own against them from the Treaty of Karlowitz to its conquest it was doing ok the next war the russian basicly suffered no real resistance from crimean in 1730s
 
From a broader geopolitical viewpoint, nomads in Central Asia inevitably fell IOTL because Russia was a steadily growing juggernaut with a vested interest in taking them down. Russia had the resources to expand into formerly remote regions and supply their conquering forces adequately, and the nomads didn’t have sufficient outside help to counter that advantage. Crimea lasted so long because it was one of the few exceptions that did have significant outside help.
 
i also stated unless they had an ally with gunpowder the crimean khanate had the ottomans who had for a time the best gunpowder based army in the world ,and the crimeans really depended on the turks in various aspects
sure they raided deep in to russia but there is the case of the battle of Molodi where figting at close proximity and the heavy use of artillery destroyed the small turkish and large tartar force

The decline of the Crimean Khanate was a consequence of the weakening of the Ottoman Empire and a change in Eastern Europe's balance of power favouring its neighbours

" the Crimean Khanate (including minor subject hordes like Yedisan) was using traditional nomadic light cavalry until the late 18th century " yes and by 1699 peter the great had turned the crimean khanate in to an insignificant power that went from rading deep even reaching moscow to essently a rotten state that would be the equivalent of saying the 14th century byzantine empire was holding its own just because russia did not kill it in 1699 does not mean that it was some how holding its own against them from the Treaty of Karlowitz to its conquest it was doing ok the next war the russian basicly suffered no real resistance from crimean in 1730s
Actually not at all, the majority of times where the ottomans did help things went wrong (the offensive campaigns in Russia being the main examples), the crimeans helped more the ottomans (providing important light cavalry support) than the other way around. Peter I's Crimean and Azov campaigns were mainly against crimean forces with ottoman forces being only the garrisons of the fortifications in Azov and southern Crimea. And now i don't see from where you got that in 1699 the russians turned it in a insignicant power, the only effective advance the russians made was in Azov after two sieges, and it was exactly because of that they gained only the city in the peace treaty, the Crimean campaigns were swiftly defeated. And in the 1730s the russians suffered real resistance, they just initally overcame this resistance but then were struck by plague, heavy supply problems and a winter counterattack from the crimeans, forcing them to retreat, there was already some sort of seeable tactical superiority but far from being as lopsided as what happened in 1771, the crimean forces by then were still fighting-worthy forces even if they were a inferior one tactically compared to the russians, hardly a byzantine empire analogue. The Crimean Khanate fell because it couldn't hold more on its own (like they had successfully did so before) while the ottomans (who were used to just leaving the crimeans defending themselves) were suffering literally the worst defeats in the history of the state at sea as well as at land, the Ottoman establishment was surprised at how the crimeans were defeated, and two Khans were dismissed during the war because of "incompetence" (it was really the tactical superiority coming strong that time and they couldn't do much about it).
 
Gaaah WHY does EVERYONE want to unite Austria with Germany??? :p
To be fair, the very first thing the Austrians did after kicking out the Hapsburgs was to declare the Republic of German Austria with a constitution who's second article declared that Austria was a constituent portion of the German Republic and who's government entered into negotiations with the nascent Weimar Republic on unification but was preempted by the Allies.
 
To be fair, the very first thing the Austrians did after kicking out the Hapsburgs was to declare the Republic of German Austria with a constitution who's second article declared that Austria was a constituent portion of the German Republic and who's government entered into negotiations with the nascent Weimar Republic on unification but was preempted by the Allies.
To be fair, the very first thing the Austrians did after kicking out the Hapsburgs was to declare the Republic of German Austria with a constitution who's second article declared that Austria was a constituent portion of the German Republic and who's government entered into negotiations with the nascent Weimar Republic on unification but was preempted by the Allies.
TBH, from what i read, it seems that they did that because they thought that they would not be economically viable without access to the sea. They were not going to unite with germany without a Bavarian esque deal either.
 
Gaaah WHY does EVERYONE want to unite Austria with Germany??? :p
In my more cynical moments, I think that part of that may be that A) The difference between Austrian and German culture is not readily apparent to people from outside of Germany and Austria; this makes it easy to subconsciously treat their division as a fluke that can easily be butterflied or handwaved away.

B) The reasons that those who wanted them to be separate tend to hinge on issues of religious and cultural identity that seem, at best, antiquated to many writers and the motivations are easily downplayed by writers with little conscious experience of similar feelings.

C) Between Austria's poor performance against Napoleon, Austria-Hungary serving as the junior partner to Germany in the Dreikaiserbund and in the First World War, and the Anschluss, Austria has been saddled with the reputation of being a lesser German country that can be easily subordinated to- or swallowed up by- its larger cousin.
 
Actually not at all, the majority of times where the ottomans did help things went wrong (the offensive campaigns in Russia being the main examples), the crimeans helped more the ottomans (providing important light cavalry support) than the other way around. Peter I's Crimean and Azov campaigns were mainly against crimean forces with ottoman forces being only the garrisons of the fortifications in Azov and southern Crimea. And now i don't see from where you got that in 1699 the russians turned it in a insignicant power, the only effective advance the russians made was in Azov after two sieges, and it was exactly because of that they gained only the city in the peace treaty, the Crimean campaigns were swiftly defeated. And in the 1730s the russians suffered real resistance, they just initally overcame this resistance but then were struck by plague, heavy supply problems and a winter counterattack from the crimeans, forcing them to retreat, there was already some sort of seeable tactical superiority but far from being as lopsided as what happened in 1771, the crimean forces by then were still fighting-worthy forces even if they were a inferior one tactically compared to the russians, hardly a byzantine empire analogue. The Crimean Khanate fell because it couldn't hold more on its own (like they had successfully did so before) while the ottomans (who were used to just leaving the crimeans defending themselves) were suffering literally the worst defeats in the history of the state at sea as well as at land, the Ottoman establishment was surprised at how the crimeans were defeated, and two Khans were dismissed during the war because of "incompetence" (it was really the tactical superiority coming strong that time and they couldn't do much about it).
I would not call the Russians taking
Perekop , Bakhchysarai the Russian expeditionary forces pushing deep into the Crimean peninsula so much so that driving the Tatar nobles has to hills and Khan Fet’ih Girey to flee as the Russians burned down Gozlev, Karasubazar, and even the imperial palace at Bakhchysarai, you said it yourself plague hit the Russians that combined with poor sanitation and lack of supplies made them retreat
more Russians died to the latter than any Crimean resistance
I don't see how your enemy pushing deep in to your country taking your capital burning cities forcing your nobles to flee to high ground and the Khan to flee to the Black Sea and they leaving because lack of supplies and plague killing their troops is effictive resistance
In terms of the Crimean ottoman relationship it was well until the ottomans empire declined

The Tatars often returned from Ottoman campaigns without booty, and Ottoman subsidies were less likely for unsuccessful campaigns that became common also like I mentioned gunpowder weapons made the Russians easier to decimate the tartars
Why do I say the late 17th century well By ythe late 17th century, Russia became too strong a power for Crimea to pillage similar to what they did before and the Treaty of Karlowitz just outlawed further raids. The era of great slave raids and pushing deep to Russia was over,( witth the exception of Nogay raiders) the Khan do to these defeat the decline of his slave trade no great raids and the Turks decline meant that support for him disappeared and power struggle would come this is why say Crimean was basically dead as strong power
 
Last edited:
The german national movement explicitly included Austria and Bohemia in its aspirations. Only after the Habsburgs asserted themselves in Austria during the 1848 revolution people began to consider a small german solution. Before Prussia unified Germany Smallgermany could also mean Austria led Germany without Prussia.
The modern austrian identity developed after 1945 to pretend that they were Hitler's first victims. Of course there already existed a seperate austrian identity but I wouldn't say that it was always clear that a state that calls itself Germany must in- or exclude Austria or Prussia. I'd say that Germany without both of them (but with the Rhineland and Westphalia) is very feasible.
 
Top