Toying with the notion which I don't know is plausible, but can be a good point of difference: Having an independent Scotland's head of government still be called a "First Minister" and not a "Prime Minister"
Thoughts?
Thoughts?
I like this this phrase - is it a phrase in common use? I haven't seen it but I could immediately tell what it meant.This is a very interesting WI with a wide cone of plausibility, I think. The effects of the Peninsular War on the Spanish Empire can't be underestimated with the mass formation of juntas and collapse of "legitimate" authority and all, and before that point most discontent against the Spanish Empire consisted either of conspiracies planning revolution or of local rebellions against Bourbon centralism. I suppose the main exception to this is Argentina, where after the 1806 British invasion there was a massive surge of local pride that concluded with the Viceroy of the Rio de la Plata being deposed and replaced with a local popular military leader, with the Spanish authorities accepting this. That's the sort of precedent that might conclude with independence if the Spanish eventually try to truncate this sort of pseudo-autonomy and mess it up hard. Another thing to keep in mind is that, during the Napoleonic Wars even before the Peninsular War, there was a massive spike in smuggling to British and American markets. So if the Spanish try to deal with that and mess it up, that's something that might create dissent. But other than that, it would be a long process - decades, I think - to get the critical mass for independence, and liberalism and nationalism would both be far weaker forces in the Spanish Americas. I suppose Britain would also be eager to egg on the independence movements to commercially dominate the newly independent states - a policy which Lord Selkirk wanted - and that will have some effects.
Not that I’m aware of and as far as I know I came up with it, but I very well could have gotten it from somewhere and forgotten the source. As you say it struck me as a very natural turn of phrase for something that is an important part of AH.I like this this phrase - is it a phrase in common use? I haven't seen it but I could immediately tell what it meant.
I remember reading an old AH story about Rome where Julia still died, but her child managed to survive, leading to Caesar and Pompey being united in their grief, but having a common heir.Classical PoD: is the survival of Julia, Julius Caesar's daughter, enough to keep Pompey and Caesar in the same camp?
On the one hand, I can't see either consenting to the other being an equal to them, but that familial link is a very strong one, and despite the age gap, it does seem that Julia and Pompey genuinely loved each other. Would Julia be able to keep her father and her husband from coming to blows?
I read a book about China's non-Han majority regions and learned about Mount Kailash - it's holy to four different religions, and I couldn't help but think that, in a different timeline, it could be a contentions site something akin to the Temple Mount in Jerusalem in our world, i.e. dropping a pin in the wrong place could start a world war.
Doesn't that miss the major interest of how does the US and World get impacted by no FDR?What if FDR had lost at the 1932 Democratic National Convention. His support was pretty fragile, James Farley thought that it would quickly collapse if he hadn't been nominated by the fifth ballot. There were a few instances when Roosevelt came close to defeat, so what if this had actually come to pass? How would FDR's political career be impacted by this defeat?
The thing I'm wondering is if FDR losing in 1932 would meaningfully impact his political careerDoesn't that miss the major interest of how does the US and World get impacted by no FDR?
Be more political continuity than primary european sources would have you believe. Radama was already heading towards breaking the british alliance before his death.this lady A timeline where Radama I (king of Madagascar in the early 19th century) survives and the island becomes a Japan-style country would be interesting, both due to the possibilities and the fact it would prevent Ranavalona I from coming to power. ("This lady" was supposed to be in place of her regnal name, but the hyperlink glitched out)
So did I, in fact when I read it I wished Spufford had done more counterfactual exploration of a Soviet command economy that managed to keep its promises. I'm intrigued to see he has also written bona fide AH.I‘ll be buying that, I enjoyed Red Plenty and have an interest in Cahokia.
In With Iron and Fire some of the Czechoslovak Legionnaires stay behind in the newly founded state of Yakutia, including General Gajda, who by 1933 has become its de facto dictatorial ruler.My pitch is that this ends with the Czechoslovak Legion becoming the Praetorian Guard for the eventual winners, and by the 1940s its understood by everyone that the Vozhd of the Russian State is simply a puppet of the Czechoslovaks.
Try to write the information in an exciting tone.Can I ask you something?
How can you decide on whether what you are writing is bland or not?
Because I feel like what I am writing right now for my timeline (as I am now stuck in the first and most dreaded part of "The Cadets Are Not Deceived!", the info dump regarding Turkey of the 1950s, and especially before the coup situation.)
Here is the link to it (Warning: It is in the membership-required part of the website), please tell me whether what I wrote so far is bland or not as bad as I am thinking of them to be.
How can I do it?Try to write the information in an exciting tone.