Most overrated military pre-1900?
If by pre 1900 you mean all national militaries in 1899 and not in all time before 1900 then I nominate the Imperial Russian Navy. At the time they were viewed as one of the big three navies. But given what would happen in 1905, and the flaws which were pointed out I would say their capabilities at the time were fairly overrated.Most overrated military pre-1900?
Hmm. I thought that the reason why the Imperial Russian Navy was so weak in the Russo-Japanese War was because most of its Pacific branch was sneak attacked and sunk early. As for other "overrated" militaries, I was thinking the Spartans were overrated back in Ancient Greece. They were not unstoppable by any means despite popular culture.If by pre 1900 you mean all national militaries in 1899 and not in all time before 1900 then I nominate the Imperial Russian Navy. At the time they were viewed as one of the big three navies. But given what would happen in 1905, and the flaws which were pointed out I would say their capabilities at the time were fairly overrated.
Well at that point Henry was engaged to Katherine’s niece Eleanor, who was a much better match under any aspect but age as she was only ten years old at Henry VII’s death. Keeping the engagement to Eleanor and marrying her would mean who Henry needed to wait another two years before marrying and at least two more (so four years, better five from his father’s death) before consummate the wedding and securing the succession. I will suggest to delay of two years the death of Henry VII so 12 years old Eleanor of Austria have the time for arriving in England and formally marrying Henry jr, becoming princess of Wales before the death of her new father-in lawCould Prince Henry have ignored Katherine of Aragon when he became heir? Simply saying she and Prince Arthur had consummated their marriage gets him out of it. Whom does he go on to marry instead, and what might be the fallout of not marrying the widow?
Try the Map Thread, currently in its 20th iteration (it's popular!): https://www.alternatehistory.com/forum/threads/map-thread-xx.492239/page-60Hello, I am new at AH. I made a cool map with the divergent point in 1848. The map itself is in the year 2020 (also a bit silly backstory). Where am I supposed to post my map?
Thanks, I'll try thatTry the Map Thread, currently in its 20th iteration (it's popular!): https://www.alternatehistory.com/forum/threads/map-thread-xx.492239/page-60
Well, probably a small century I'll say, But in anyway we wouldn't have been as populated as the Brits with our method of population at that time, as, while the English crown sent every problem to the colonies, we basically either came to a compromise or killed the problem and we only sent "Good Loyal French" peasants and like third sons of nobles and stuff, while keeping good relations with the Natives to avoid a maximum of conflicts (this kinda worked but natives were already fighting each other, so if you befriend one, the enemy won't like you, obviously).At what point did it become too late for France to properly populate its New World holdings? How much peacetime does France need to populate its colonies to properly face the English on the coast?
A lot of Sudetenland was German, as the first Czech kings brougt Germans to settle the border lands of their kingdomi suppose a better question would be what parts were overwhelmingly german speaking, what parts were true majority, and what parts were mixed. for the question of pre partition nation building that wouldnt matter, but for later revisionism it would. "we should have this part cause it used to be polish" "nuh uh the coast has been german for centuries" that sort of thing. i want to know what areas are majority by new settlement/ conversion and which are older and more established (from an 1800s viewpoint.) on a similar note itd be neat to know how much of czechia's sudetenland was german before the Austrian push to recatholicize the place.