What If He Had won?

[macwilkin]

The author, Harry Turtledove, writes a lot of fictionalized, alternative history novels; I didn't see anything on this subject or time period, though.

That's not my cup of tea; I don't mind historical fiction, but I try to avoid fictional history.

All "what-if" history must be taken with a dose of salts, Ted, but I wouldn't say I "avoid" it entirely. Military historians, for example, frequently play "armchair quarterback" when studying a particular battle/campaign.

T.

[Bugbear]

All "what-if" history must be taken with a dose of salts, Ted, but I wouldn't say I "avoid" it entirely. Military historians, for example, frequently play "armchair quarterback" when studying a particular battle/campaign.

T.

But do we have to creat a world where, for example, Germany won WW II and now we all speak German. That's the kind of alternative fictional history I mean. It's just a personal preference.

* Although, I am impressed with the work that modern historians have done in uncovering... over looked and unexplored history. *

[DWFII]

I read the entire Turtledove series that starts with "Guns of the South"...I can't remember the last title in the series but it chronicles a US history predicated upon the assumption that the South won the Civil War all the way into the late 1930's maybe early '40's. .

I found it fascinating, not just because Turtledove is a superb storyteller and an equally well-versed historian, but because it makes you think about all the things we take for granted...and all the things that seem so "broken" in our present timeline and how much worse they sometimes might have been.

Turtledove is also adept at making the point that 'there is a tide in human affairs' that most likely cannot be denied.

And while I am not an historian...in the sense that I remember and can rattle off dates, and battles and lineages, etc....I do read a lot of history--mostly the American Civil War but a little of WWII, as well. I also read a lot of historical fiction and alternate history. I think when you have read, or know enough about a time period, pondering the "what ifs" is perhaps the most fascinating and productive thing you can do with that knowledge.

A knowledge of history gives us the perspectives that allow us to say..."things are not as bad as they seem, " or "we've been here before."

Speculation about alternate history gives the perspective to say " in the end, things probably worked out for the best...or at least, the only way they could have."

[Bugbear]

Good point, DWFII. Still, there are angles on actual history that are being re-looked -at, and new documents etc coming to light all the time. Those discoveries make for very interesting reading too.

[McClef]

Had the Stuarts succeeded in 1746, in all likelihood Charles would have succeeded his father (James III) in 1766, having married a Protestant princess, and produced an heir-- failing that his younger brother would have done the same and succeeded as Henry IX in 1788, and the line would probably have continued down to the present day, the Duke of Bavaria included.

All of this is, of course, idle speculation. What happened is exactly what happened, and the world is probably no better (or worse) as a result of it.

Agreed, idle speculation.

His brother, as a Catholic priest, could not have married, however, and shall we say, was "not one for the ladies" in any case...

The source of Protestant princesses was also largely limited to Germany and Scandinavia and the Germans might not have been happy with the idea of marrying either a Catholic or a regime that had thrown a German dynasty out.

[Jock Scot]

I am happy to let sleeping dogs lie, firmly asleep.

[McMathTX]

Some things that would have changed is that I would not exist. I had relatives that fought as a Jacobite that fled to the Americas, one of which married a native american. But it is a facinating thought, and would have changed the world.

Like Downix, I too would not exist! Unless of course, the correct Irish, Ulster-
Scots, Choctaw, and English girls all happened to be wandering Scotland at the correct time and place. I guess all would have turned out OK for me in that case. But then, my little Swiss Miss that I'm married to would have to come over for a visit as well! Nah, I think I'll leave history as is.

Dean

[MacMillan of Rathdown]

His brother, as a Catholic priest, could not have married, however, and shall we say, was "not one for the ladies" in any case...

Henry Bendict was ordained priest and enthroned as a cardinal in 1747, a year after the failure of the last Jacobite rising. It is a matter of record that he maintained at least two mistresses during his lifetime (a common practice at the time), although it is not recorded if they bore him any children.

The source of Protestant princesses was also largely limited to Germany and Scandinavia and the Germans might not have been happy with the idea of marrying either a Catholic or a regime that had thrown a German dynasty out.

If the Stewarts had succeeded, finding suitable protestant princesses for Charles and Henry would not have proved too difficult a task. A dynastic marriage to a nominally "protestant" heir to the British throne would have overcome any feeling of sympathy for the ex-king of Britain, who was still the King of Hanover.

However, given how the '45 rising turned out, it is not surprising that neither Charles nor Henry pursued an active claim to the British crown.

I think he should have taken the offer of the Crown of the United States...

[Pleater]

Despite there not being a miltary force between Derby and London capable of repeling the invasion, the Prince and his commanders were informed that there was, and more troops were marching to join them with all speed, by a man who seems to have been part spy, part civil servant - and entirely untrustworthy.

The commanders, already uneasy about their situation so far from home, refused to venture further into England and turned back...

It is easy to envisage some reason for the lie not to be given - the horse going lame, the man waylaid, a welcoming wayside inn, his loyalties being other than they were or swayed by some bribe or promised reward for the truth - but it didn't happen.

Perhaps if the Scots had decided to continue South there would have been further civil servants to make further attempts to make them turn back, maybe assassins to take out the Prince or some of the Commanders.

Force of arms is not the only resource of a government at war, and I suspect that even if Kings and nobles were about to flee, the grey men still stalked the corridors of power and sent out their minions to ensure history would be theirs to write.

Anne the Pleater

[David Dubh]

Their has been much speculation on this from various sources. Some suggest that the War of Independance would not have happened as the main reason for it was raising taxes to fight the french! The Stuarts beleived in the absolute power of the Monarchy this is what caused the English? civil war. It is perhaps possible that in time this would have lead to a complete revolution like the french and we would have a republic instead of a constitutional monarchy. If Charlie had allowed Lord George to lead the men at Culloden the masacre and subsequent clearences probably wouldn't have happened. The world would be a poorer place though some of the great explorers merchants and thinkers were Scots, would they have still had the vision and freedom to do this. Finally I don't think that the brittish empire would have existed as it did less reason for the Scots to join the Brittish Army, as the Highlanders were always given the toughest tasks (genocide perhaps). Ah what we would do to wear our beloved KILT.. No I think history happens for reasons that are beyond us. Think things turned out OK. Highlanders are now the stuff of romantic legend and mystery.