No need to think about it, because it actually happened. Western civilization is a direct continuation of the Western Roman Empire. Latin was only supplanted by French in the late 17th century. Architecture, law, culture, religion and much more remained Roman, or an evolution. Even Roman rulers survived in the form of popes, who filled the void left by emperors and were long above all European rulers. Everything that made up the Roman state survived.... except the state itself.
I think some additional effects would take place. If we assume France doesn't win the 100 year war, but let's say they lose little territory, and the Netherlands and Spain never have the 80 years war, that changes the geopolitics of western Europe. (Note: I'll use Burgundy and 'Dutch' somewhat interchangeably for its dual nature. We'll maintain most major events, even though that would never happen) 3) Despite Burgundian roots, the trading power of Holland and Flanders still become so economically dominant that they become the effective heart of the country, and you still get the duality between monarch and estates-general. The Burgundian monarchy's main challenge is to keep peace with the northern states, else they'll rebel and Burgundy's rump state would be quickly cannibailzed by its enemies. 4) The reformation would probably be less strong in the Netherlands, since there's no independence war to fuel it. I still think the Netherlands would embrace reforms, but likely more moderate, becoming a more neutral path, along with England. 5) By 1600, France would be in great trouble. Its monarchy much weaker, continuous disputes with England and Burgundy, and a much stronger Spain in the south would be too much for a non-colonial power. We might speculate that in the 30 years war, this weaker France joins the catholics, causing England and Burgundy to "join the protestants" during the Huegenot crisis. In it they focus down France (and defeat Spain on the seas). The French monarchy falls, England takes the area between the Seine and Loire, roughly, while Burgundy takes the area north-east of the Seine. Spain makes the southern French rump states protectorates (Savoy is never absorbed) 6) "Meanwhile in Germany": Austria has had early success. But with Swedish entry, they along with Prussia fight a bitter war over central Germany, though neither party can prevail. But as France falls and Spain overextends (losing at sea and trying to occupy hostile French regions), Burgundy now sends a battlehardened army from the west. Alike the French intervention in the 30 year war, this tips the scales in favor of the protestants, and alike France in our timeline, Burgundy insists on religious peace (as per #4). In the end, the main effect on Germany-politics is that Prussia and Sweden spread their spheres of influence in north-east Germany; Burgundy over north-west Germany, and Austria somewhat over South-Germany, with South-Germany less enthousiastic 7) Through the next hundred years, Britain, Burgundy and Spain mainly compete in colonial ventures. Dutch-English tensions come to a rise as they did, resulting in the Glorious Revolution. Without French problems, Burgundy is more dominant in this timeline and Charles VI, being monarch already, never moves to England. The two kingdoms split again on his death; in the process, some holdings have been exchanged. Britain now holds North-America and focuses on India, while the Dutch focus on the Spice Islands. Additionally, British mainland holdings are reduced to Brittany and Normandy, as the remainder preferred Burgundian rule. Spain continues to struggle. It rose higher than in our timeline, but now also falls harder. 8) Meanwhile in the east, Prussia becomes dominant in North-East Germany, having some fights with Austria as it did. Afterwards, the Commonwealth is divided as it was. The western powers stay out of this, I believe, except that Britain increases its ties with Scandinavia while Burgundy solidifies Northwest Germany as its protectorates. The HRE continues to lose its meaning as it's really just three powers that dominate it. 9) Revolutionary era: while Britain is busy with the American revolution: as Spain continues attempts to absorb Italy and France, the Francophile Charles IX attempts to 'liberate the French'. However, between decadence and high taxes, the Dutch revolution fires while the Burgundian army is far away. Charles and his circle are executed, and the Revolutionary Netherlands appoint Holland's stadtholder William VI. The Dutch army, now swelling fast and backed by a powerful economy, overwhelms Spain, spreading the revolution to roughly the same region as in our timeline. This revolution however is not catholic in nature, and has more [english] liberal values as we would see it, being based in Holland rather than Paris. The Eastern powers attempt a coalition but are defeated as in our timeline. Britain only partially contributes, as per the differences, the revolutionaries have far more sympathy in the Isles, ultimately forcing the British king to compromise with them. Prussia will be more favorable to the revolution, while Austria remains more opposed. The revolution still fails in an invasion of Russia. William however has fewer enemies and can regroup. However, the revolutionary flames are dwindling, allowing for peace negotiations. In the end, most borders return to what they were, except Italy has been sorta-united, and Southern-French client states remain under Dutch control, with Western Europe dominated by dual monarchies and parliamentary democratic monarchy systems. Meanwhile, south-Germany is now solidly controlled by Austria. 10) 1848 still comes, but mainly in Austria and Russia, the remaining absolute monarchies. These movements are crushed with only minimal concessions. Spain struggles between a more liberal faction and a return to monarchy, France gains more autonomy, and Prussia liberalizes compared to our timeline. 11) Late 19th century: - The Ottoman Empire crumbles under is decadence - Austria-Hungary struggles in internal division - the French-Dutch divide mends only slowly. Effectively they are ruled as a personal union - Germany unites under Bismarck, this time in a war against Austria. South-Germany is initially neutral, but eventually joins Germany; North-west Germany remains Dutch. After a hardfought siege of Vienna, Austria-Hungary concedes the remainder of Bohemia and will have limited ability to act in the Balkans - Russian-Ottoman wars rage, and Russia ends up slightly stronger, with major influence over the Balkans in particular (Romania, Bulgaria, Greece, Serbia, Albania, Bosnia among others). - Scramble for Africa: less pronounced in this timeline as Germany has limited access to the sea and France and Belgium don't exist. Britain still extends influence in its war on slavery, and the Dutch set up protectorates mainly to limit British expansionism. - With the Netherlands much stronger, Britain is not a world hegemon this time. Relations between the two are mostly friendly rivalry, but there are tensions. 12) WW era: - After tsarevitch Alexei is murdered in Sarajevo, similar alliances play out. However the central powers are much weaker. Bismarck's push ends at the Rhine, Austria struggles in the Balkans. The war ends in 2 years, but the Allies have insisted Russia free the Balkans. South-Germany becomes independent; otherwise, much the same results as WW1 in our timeline. - There is no powerful Germany to initiate WW2, Italy received more concessions from the Ottoman Empire, and the Allies are far less harmed, so more willing to deter future wars. Europe's conflict is limited to local affairs, while Britain and the Netherlands mostly get along in an era of increased cooperation. - Russia - almost defeated in the Great War, and having had to give major concessions to survive, with an unpopular tsar and lagging severely behind, still collapses to revolution. Allied intervention is limited after Lenin moderates his platform. Trotsky eventually succeeds him. - Japan still gets ambitious, but has no opportunity to strike south, but instead makes deals with the USSR. This triggers a League intervention. Japan is soon on the back foot, but stubborn resistance still triggers the nuclear bombing by the USA. The USSR doesn't expand as it had. 13) Modern era: - There is less of a cold war, with the USSR much more limited and moderated, but more revolutions ensue overall. Colonialism is phased out more slowly, with more care for succession states, but conflict still widely breaks out in its wake. Racism remains endemic, as there has been no holocaust to denounce it by. In the late 20th century, a rapidly growing Nationalist China starts taking over Indochina, threatening the east indies, and rivaling the world's main economies, prompting the second world war. After millions die in Asia, eventually China is cornered and launches tactical nukes at Allied bridgeheads. Nuclear escalation ensues, and most of the world is destroyed in the tragedy. And that is why Burgundy had to collapse.
For some reason I think that even under Swedish crown, Finns would maintain the language and culture even if the main official language would be Swedish. It would help tons with the trade and most likely annexation on Estonia since by those times we spoke literally the same language and had shared culture. Same applies to Karelian people as well as Sami in the far North to thge reaches of Kola peninsula. I'm sure Finland would stay under the crown and wouldn't try to declare independence or break the union like with Ruskies, though I'd dare to claim Finland would be antonymous state with own governance under Swedish/Scandivanian rule.
Very big fantacy and overly optimostic prediction, russia would have been long gone by 2100. The technological is true just not going to be as fast, you also need time for orgenazations to adapt to the new changes and be able to utilize all the new things, there would be a surge of self emplyment and "economic boom" and after 5 years when big corps get their head around the new systems they will slowly down size starting to contribute to mass unemplyment recreating the great depression. Also during all that time we will slowly start to realize that world pop isnt 8bil but going down and we wont understand why at least the average person wont understand, slowly demand will go down and maybe around 2050 we would actually start or have a fyo colonies in outer space.
uf you think the dutch where a powerhouse in out timeline. imagine in this timeline keeping Ghent (which was a powerhouse back in the day) and Antwerp. this would make the dutch economy een more insane then it was in the golden age
I am optimistic about the future. And the climate has been changing naturally all the time. Bangladesh can join India to make India larger at the end of the century, this 21st century, for some other reason. A North American union sounds good, as the three biggest countries of the region are members of NAFTA. I can see Mexico becoming a developed country in the near future and Canada, the United States and Mexico agreeing to become one country by the time we get to the 22nd century to begin. I turn 32 in August this year. For the near future we may not be able to fully Terraform the solar system, but that can be done as more time goes by. I don't want to forever leave planet Earth. The EU countries can form a large country of the European Union. We're from planet Earth and belong to the human race, so let's say that all the time. May we end poverty and hunger around the world to end completely for the near future. It will be a few centuries until we start being a type 1 civilization. I want to live to be 120 years old, and I therefore can see what changes come for us humans on Earth and space colonies in the early 22nd century. And as we mix even more than ever before and we have more technology, we'll speak less languages to better communicate with each other.
Rus was not the name for the Norse. Also Kievan Rus is an anachronism invented by Russian Imperial Historians. The term denotes that time when the Russian people were rulled from Kiev (not Kiyv). The term Russian also came from the Byzantines (the term Ρωσία/Rosía). UA didn't exist until the First World War, with Galicia serving as a machine of UA propaganda. Cossacks were not UA. Also the RU minorities are caused by the fact that the Black Sea coast was RU and Tatar, never belonging to any UAs.
could you do a senario of "what if the middle east never had oil" this senario has huge ramifications like a different coldwar, usa probably "annexing" venesuela for their big oil reserves and perhaps a greater progress on renewables.
The premise that Burgundy acted as a sovereign state is false. Except for Charles, the dukes were all pairs of the kingdom of France and spent most of their time embroiled in french politics and fights for the french throne.
I don't like it. Everything remains basically democratic or liberal, empires consolidate more countries together when in reality if there was a mass space colonization with self sufficient colonies then they would quickly secede and form their own governments. Also a lot of dissidents on earth would probably be sent into space
If the US in this scenario continued to invest in the Orion nuclear pulse jet spaceships they would have ships in their inventory that could travel to the red planet in only a few weeks. These large ships would also be crewed a hundreds of people.
The only problem i have with this is that the Romans always fucked up things, through egoistical characters and their lust for power. Inevitably leading to crises and loss of territories. This is also why i think it wasn't all the "barbarian's" fault if it fell as an empire.
Maybe it's the third time I've seen this recommended vlog about Sol system colonial strategies, but before to talk about so-called space politics, think about space de-weaponization and space settlements selections firstly. Moreover, FTL motherships are significant starfleets transportation vessels to prepare space development age, not colonial age. How many space strategies and budgets are supposed to gain to civilian space development and terraforming process? Those aspects are more important than "space politics on the papers".
The miniseries "Maximilian and Marie de Bourgogne" (2017) is an interesting story with significant Burgundy ties. Naturally dramatised, but still a good way to pick up some history. The multilingual production made it easier to keep track of who is who in the intrigues.
Here: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-s5RsRXA8YTY.html I just made it only accessible by link because I constantly had to explain to potential sponsors why I had 1 underperforming video.
You alternate USA one is quite interesting. I also read in another alt-history article that the US would essentially remain as it was since the British weren't keen on expanding because they lacked the "manifest destiny" doctrine and the British were frequent traders of the natives. and ofcourse midwest US is a shithole anyways.
first mistake and with your map at the beginning you could easily see. The east also didn't survive. Eastern Rome also collapsed. Byziantum called itself Rome but it wasn't. Your western Empire has Britain. Rome was long time before the collapse on the decline in Britain. You are also giving the entire Carolinian Empire to the West. Eastern Rome never extended their realm after the collapse. Taking equal steps would also paint the western part as Rome and not as Frankian Empire. Meaning the west would never be able to gain the German territories the Corilingian Empire could conquer. Your Arabs are completely wrong, too. They would conquer all Byzantium very quickly as they did with Spain in the real world. And they would also slowly move towards Marokko just not immediatly into Spain to show that they also conquered parts of Byzantium. The biggest difference might be that in later times the Arabs might conquer Spain but a reconquister never happens. (compared to what happened with the Ottoman Empire) I admit. From the beginning I was against your idea. But with the harsh mistakes you do it's hard to follow your idea. But all you do is not sticking to History but just creating a strong western Rome while creating fake states in the East while the fake states would just be the real states but bigger and stronger and earlier in the making.
