WI: Richard III had won the Battle of Bosworth Field?

Well, I couldn't get anything done Monday or Wednesday, but in my defense I just started a new job this week. Here's a Friday update regardless.

The Battle of Bosworth Field is one of the most famous battles of late medieval England and, thanks to Shakespeare, the one that most people remember when they hear of the Wars of the Roses. It was on Bosworth Field, August 22 1485, that Henry Tudor defeated Richard III of the House of York (itself a cadet branch of the House of Plantagenet) and took the throne of England, bringing an end to the 331-year rule of the Plantagenet dynasty and inaugurating the reign of the House of Tudor.

But what if...the outcome had been reversed, so that Richard had won at Bosworth instead? Henry Tudor's victory was not an inevitability, and Richard's defeat had more to do with treachery by several of his lords rather than any tactical genius on Tudor's part. He was betrayed by Thomas Stanley, who was Tudor's stepfather and showed little regard for the life of his son George (a hostage taken by Richard before the battle), and Henry Percy the 4th Earl of Northumberland, who resented Richard's refusal to grant him more authority over the north of England. Percy held his forces back at a critical juncture in the battle (when the Yorkist infantry under a more loyal vassal, the Duke of Norfolk, was defeated by its Lancastrian counterpart under the Earl of Oxford) while Stanley actually attacked Richard when he mounted his last desperate charge towards Tudor's position, dooming him.

So, what if either or both of these lords had stayed loyal? With their numbers strengthening his already numerically superior army, Richard would in all likelihood have won handily. If Northumberland stays loyal, the Yorkist infantry is reinforced at an important turning point and never falters, eventually resulting in the collapse of the numerically now far inferior Tudor foot: Richard never even has to engage in his famous charge. If Stanley aids Richard or even just holds back when the King charges at Tudor's position, Richard will almost certainly kill Tudor - he came extremely close to doing the job in our timeline, smiting Tudor's banner-bearer with one blow of his lance and unhorsing another of his bodyguards - and win the battle that way.

So, what happens in the medium to long term? Well, for one thing, the Wars of the Roses is effectively over. Richard will have eliminated the last viable Lancastrian claimant in Henry Tudor (who wasn't even a member of the House of Lancaster, another cadet branch of the Plantagenets, but was matrilineally related to them through the Beauforts, a branch of legitimized Lancastrian bastards). The House of York can reign securely from here on out.

Richard's immediate priority, besides hunting down and exterminating any Lancastrian stragglers, will be to find himself a new wife. His first wife, Anne Neville, died five months before the battle and their only child, Edward of Middleham, had died the year before at the age of ten. Thus, to secure his bloodline, Richard will need to remarry and father more sons as soon as he can. Historically, he was trying to negotiate a marriage to Joanna, Princess of Portugal when he was killed.

An alternative wife would be his niece, Elizabeth of York. Marrying her could smooth over tensions within the Yorkist faction between those who supported Richard and the partisans of the children of his brother and predecessor Edward IV, chiefly the family of Edward's wife Elizabeth Woodville. She has the problem of having been bastardized by Titulus Regius, the act of Parliament that made Richard king over her brothers (the Princes in the Tower, Edward V and Richard, Duke of York) in the first place.

In any case, if Richard marries either woman and father children with her, the future looks fairly bright for the House of York: they will have an England that is finally stable thanks to the extirpation of the heirs of the rival House of Lancaster, and opportunities to expand their influence abroad against Scotland (ruled by a weak king, James III) and France (soon to fall into its own civil war between the regency of Anne de Beaujeu and the great magnates of the kingdom). England will probably involve itself more heavily on the continent, as Richard had been a fervent advocate of war with France during the reign of Edward IV.

If Richard has no more children, the House of Plantagenet will come to an end with his later death anyway, and be replaced by the House de la Pole - Richard had named John de la Pole, Earl of Lincoln and his nephew by his middle sister Elizabeth, his heir after the death of his own son. In this case, King John II may face challenges from supporters of the Plantagenets who rally around either Richard's other living (though imprisoned) nephew Edward, Earl of Warwick and son of Richard's third brother George, Duke of Clarence or an impostor like the ones who challenged Henry Tudor's reign historically, such as Lambert Simnel (who pretended to be the Earl of Warwick) and Perkin Warbeck (who pretended to be Richard Duke of York, the younger Prince in the Tower).

Restoration

Well, today's my birthday. And on that note I'd like to say I'm getting back to this blog after a four-month hiatus, which I took to work on a game and, well, actual work. I'm starting a new job next Wednesday but, starting Monday the 28th, will still try to go back to regular updates; every Monday, Wednesday and Friday.

WI: Charles, Prince of Viana survives?

Finally back, was busy all Holy Week. Without further ado...

Charles, Prince of Viana is one of those historical characters who is little known to the public, but whose fate was massively important to the development of late medieval and early modern European history. The only son of John II of Aragon and his first wife Blanche, Queen of Navarre, Prince Charles' relationship with his father turned bitter after John remarried to the Castilian noblewoman Juana Enriquez (who hated Charles, considering him a threat to the prosperity of her own son Ferdinand, and did everything she could to turn John against him) and then tried to deny Charles his rightful inheritance - the crown of Navarre - following Blanche's death in 1441. Charles was unwilling to let go of his maternal inheritance without a fight, so fight they did, and eventually father triumphed over son: Charles was defeated and imprisoned by John in 1452, eventually released (but denied the Navarrese crown) and jailed again in 1459 for attempting to marry the Castilian princess Isabella, who would eventually become Queen of Castile and wife to his half-brother Ferdinand.

Alas, there was no happy and glorious ending for Charles himself. In 1461, his father was forced to release him from prison to satisfy the demands of Catalan rebels who resented his efforts to expand his royal prerogative at the expense of Catalonia's traditional autonomy. However, not long afterwards, Charles was poisoned - likely by his stepmother - and Ferdinand became the undisputed heir to the Aragonese throne. Ferdinand would go on to marry Isabella and become one half of the Catholic Monarchs who united Spain, complete the Reconquista by destroying the last Muslim state in Iberia, and oversee the dawn of the Spanish Empire 'on which the sun never sets'.

But what if...Charles does not die at his stepmother's hands? Perhaps he prevails over his grasping father in the Navarrese civil war and forces John to recognize him as Charles IV of Navarre, or John never bothers to infringe on his son's succession rights in the first place. Either way, with an independent power-base and stronghold secured in Navarre, Charles becomes much safer from his stepmother.

Even more interestingly, Charles was originally married to Agnes of Cleves, a niece of the Burgundian duke Philip the Good: sadly, Agnes died childless at the age of 26 in 1448, and Charles would eventually get into hot water with his father again when he pursued Isabella of Castile, who would eventually marry his half-brother Ferdinand after his death. Of course, if Agnes still dies on schedule and Charles lives long enough to marry Isabella, then a Castilian-Aragonese Spain will still be born, just with a different father. But if Agnes lives longer and bears an also-longer-lived Charles children, then the unification of Castile and Aragon is butterflied away. Instead, Aragon will unite with Navarre and remain independent of Castile, allowing Charles and his successors to focus on Mediterranean ventures: uniting with their distant Trastamaran kin in Naples and battling the Muslims of the Barbary Coast.

So, what happens to Castile in this scenario? Well, they had a succession crisis of their own brewing at the same time that John and Charles were fighting. Isabella's uncle was the weak king of Castile, Henry IV 'the Impotent', who had only one child of dubious parentage with his infamously unfaithful wife Joan of Portugal: this daughter, also named Joan, was nicknamed 'La Beltraneja' after a rumor that she was actually the child of Beltran de la Cueva, Duke of Albuquerque and one of her mother's many lovers. After Henry died in 1475, Castile fell into civil war between the supporters of Joan and Isabella (who claimed that Joan was a bastard, and so Henry should be succeeded by his indisputably trueborn niece), with Joan being supported by her uncle and husband Afonso V of Portugal and Isabella being backed by her own husband Ferdinand, by then King of Aragon. Of course, historically, the 'Isabelino' party and Ferdinand defeated the 'Juanistas' and their Portuguese backers, solidifying Isabella's hold on the Castilian throne and paving the way for the formation of Spain.

But without Aragon's help, Isabella's chances of victory grow much dimmer. Thus, we could very well see a different Spain formed by the unification of Castile and Portugal. This alternate Spain would still destroy the Sultanate of Granada, the last Islamic kingdom left in Iberia at the time: by the late 1400s, the situation for the Spanish Moors had grown hopeless, and Granada is too heavily outnumbered and outgunned to have a prayer against any Spain regardless of whether it is comprised of Castile-Aragon or Castile-Portugal - their defeat is only a matter of time. However, after the Reconquista is complete Alt-Spain would be free to focus on colonial ventures abroad and wars against the Muslims in the Maghreb with no other major European commitments to bog them down: this means a unified Spanish-Portuguese colonial empire, and the availability of far more resources for a crusade into Morocco and beyond. Thus, while Aragon-Navarre focuses on Mediterranean ventures, Castile-Portugal would be free to dominate the New World to an even greater extent than the historical Spanish Empire and conquer the western Maghreb, in the process saving the Songhai Empire from conquest by the Moroccans. Given enough time and resources, they might even expand into what is now modern-day West Africa (particularly Mali).

WI: The Ottomans are defeated at the Battle of Nicopolis?

In 1396, the penultimate true crusade against the Muslims had crossed the Danube and was on course to clearing the Turks out of Bulgaria, which they had conquered from the native Orthodox Shishman dynasty only three years prior. The crusader army - a mixture of Germans, Hungarians, Frenchmen, Croats and Italians with a supporting contingent from Wallachia (modern-day southern Romania) and Bulgarian exiles led by the Holy Roman Emperor Sigismund - had taken the fortified towns of Vidin and Oryahovo without much of a fight, though that did not stop the especially reckless and bloodthirsty French contingent from massacring the unfortunate inhabitants of the latter, when they reached and laid siege to Nicopolis. Due to its stronger walls and their lack of siege engines, the crusaders could not take Nicopolis by storm, and while they were trying to starve the city into surrender an Ottoman relief force (including a contingent of Christian Serbs, whose ruler Stefan Lazarevic was a Turkish vassal) led by Sultan Bayezid I emerged to their south.

After learning of the Ottoman approach, Sigismund called a war council to form up the crusaders' battle plan. With the support of other senior commanders such as Lord Enguerrand of Coucy, he advocated sending the Wallachian contingent in first to combat the lightly-equipped Turkish vanguard, after which the French knights would follow them to smash through the weakened Turkish center and his own forces would keep the Turks on the flanks occupied. The plan was rejected by the younger French commanders, chiefly Count Philip of Eu and Count Jean of Nevers (the future Duke of Burgundy), who believed that having to follow the Wallachian infantry into battle would be an insult to men of their noble stature. In the resulting battle, the French launched into a reckless charge that went through the Turkish infantry, lines of stakes, and up a hill - only to be countered and crushed by the Sultan's reserves. The Wallachians, believing the battle to be lost, retreated, and the rest of the crusader army was promptly crushed.

But what if...the crusaders had prevailed instead? Perhaps the French crusaders exhibit better discipline, and D'Eu & Nevers calm down enough to accept Sigismund's battle plans. The Wallachians engage the Turks first, trading volleys of arrows and battling the Turkish infantry to soften up their lines before the French charge in to break through the Turkish center. When they advance up the hills to face the Turk reserve, the crusaders are better prepared and organized - instead of facing just the exhausted and (thanks to the Turkish stake traps) mostly dismounted French knights, the Turks are forced to face the entire crusader army - and win the day. Bayezid, who personally commanded the Turkish reserve, is killed and his forces routed utterly.

So what happens? Well, for starters, Bulgaria will be freed from Turkish control. Sigismund recognized the claim of Prince Fruzhin, the second son of the last Bulgarian Tsar Ivan Shishman (the eldest son, Alexander had accepted Ottoman rule and converted to Islam), to the Bulgarian throne and would have proclaimed him the Tsar of the Third Bulgarian Empire. From Bulgaria, the crusaders will surely try to expel the Turks from the Balkans in their entirety. That means battling through Macedonia and Thessaly, an endeavor in which they might be joined by the opportunistic Byzantine Empire if the latter feels that closing off the Gallipoli straits and fighting the Turks in the field once more is worth the risk of losing what remains of their lands. The best-case scenario for the Christians is that they succeed in evicting the Turks from the Balkans entirely, the Byzantines regain Thrace, and most of Macedonia becomes a new crusader kingdom likely ruled by D'Eu or one of the German, Hungarian or Croat nobles in Sigismund's service.

The Turks on the other hand, may or may not pull together in time to face off with the crusader threat. Bayezid I had two sons of age to succeed him by the time of Nicopolis: Prince Suleiman, the elder, and Prince Isa, the second son. (he had many more sons but the third-oldest of them and his eventual successor in real life, Prince Mehmed, was only 7 at the time of Nicopolis) Historically, when Bayezid was taken prisoner by the Timurid Empire and the Ottoman sultanate thrown into chaos in 1402, his sons clashed with one another for the throne; here, if Suleiman and Isa fight one another while the crusaders are still bearing down on them, an Ottoman defeat is all but guaranteed and Isa, being based in Anatolia and thus further away from the crusaders, will most likely win. If either brother rallies behind the other however, they have a chance at averting disaster and containing the Christian advance to just Bulgaria.

WI: The Roman Kingdom is never overthrown?

In 509 BC, the monarchical government which had ruled the city-state of Rome for over 200 years since its founding by Romulus was ousted and a republic proclaimed. The usurper Lucius Tarquinius Superbus, also known as 'Tarquin the Proud', was deposed in a coup led by his nephew Lucius Junius Brutus (legendary ancestor of the very same Marcus Junius Brutus who dealt the deathblow to Julius Caesar many centuries later) after his son Sextus raped the virtuous noblewoman Lucretia, wife of his friend Lucius Tarquinius Collatinus. Soon after Lucretia's suicide, Tarquin the Proud and his clan were banished from Rome; Brutus was offered their crown but refused it; and ultimately the patricians (nobility) and plebeians (commoners) of Rome jointly voted in favor of ending the monarchy and establishing a republican government, with Brutus and Collatinus elected as its first Consuls.

Tarquin, as may be expected of someone with the epithet 'The Proud', did not accept his deposition gracefully. He first tried to reach out to royalist elements within the newborn Republic (including two of Brutus' sons), but when this 'Tarquinian Conspiracy' was squashed before the end of 509 BC, he turned to building alliances with the nearby Etruscan and Latin petty-kings. However, he was defeated by the Republicans at the battles of Silva Arsia (509 BC) and Lake Regillus (496 BC), and even in 508 BC the attempt where he got closest to regaining his throne was foiled when his ally, the Etruscan king Lars Porsenna of Clusium, negotiated a peace treaty with the Republic that didn't include Tarquin's restoration. After Lake Regillus, Tarquin evidently gave up on trying to win back his throne and died in obscurity in Cumae a year later.

But what if...Tarquin succeeded in reclaiming the Roman throne? It doesn't particularly matter whether the Tarquinian Conspiracy is successful, or he leads his royalists and allies to victory at Silva Arsia or Lake Regillus, or Lars Porsenna restores him to kingship in 508 BC. The important thing is that Tarquin is once more reinstated as King of Rome, strangles the dream of the Roman Republic in its cradle, and almost certainly undertakes a brutal purge of anyone he deems even remotely suspicious.

What are the long-term effects? Far too many to count, really. First and foremost, Tarquin was an incompetent and unpopular tyrant, and his three sons Titus, Arruns and Sextus do not appear to have been much different; thus, Rome is unlikely to become particularly successful under their rule. Most likely, it remains one of many small squabbling Italian city-states and falls under Etruscan influence (the Tarquinii themselves were an Etruscan clan). Unless an Etruscan king of great ability & ambition steps up, Italy will thus likely remain a disunified morass of minor kingdoms, tribes and (in the south) Greek city-states well into the foreseeable future.

Rome never becoming a great power means tremendous and unpredictable changes in the course of the Mediterranean Basin's history. Carthage, which by 509 BC had gained control of Sicily and Sardinia, is likely to become the dominant power in the western Mediterranean: however, as a maritime republic dominated by mercantile interests, the Carthaginians are unlikely to be as insistent about total conquest and direct rule as the Romans were, and instead settle for ruling their hinterland possessions through client monarchs while only colonizing and directly governing the coasts. The Celts would still have free reign across much of northern and western Europe, until and unless they are displaced by the Germanic peoples. Iberia would remain a battleground between the Carthaginians in the south/east and the native Iberians and Celts in the north/west.

Out east, as of 509 BC the Persian Empire has yet to invade Greece proper. It is, however, nearing its maximum territorial extent under Shah Darius I, and has already absorbed Macedon two years before the fall of the Tarquinii. The butterfly effect may result in the Persians conquering Greece after all, which would change the course of Western civilization in so many ways that a hundred-page paper wouldn't provide sufficient coverage. Alternatively, they could still fail before the combined strength and determination of the Greek city-states...in which case, the future remains extremely unpredictable. Perhaps the Athenians and their Delian League will prevail over the Spartans' Peloponnesian League in this timeline's equivalent of the Peloponnesian War, if one even happens? Perhaps Alexander the Great will never be born, or fails to defeat Persia utterly? Or if he is and still manages to repeat his conquests, the East would remain divided among the Diadochi with no Rome to crush them all, unless by some miracle he leaves behind a strong heir capable of holding together a realm stretching from Corfu to Pakistan. Only one thing is certain about a world where Rome never becomes a major power: it would look completely unrecognizable to modern eyes.

WI: Germany loses the Franco-Prussian War?

Had to get my braces tightened last Friday. Wasn't expecting it to be too bad (this is the second time and I already took an Advil in preparation for it) but although the tightening itself didn't almost leave me in tears like the first time around, it did leave me with a much more persistent pain and soreness in my teeth/jaw. Were it not for that, I'd have posted something Friday...but, no use crying over spilled milk. The pain's mostly faded by now, so have a new post.

In 1870, the Second French Empire was provoked into declaring war on the Prussia-led North German Confederation by the latter's Chancellor Otto von Bismarck, who manipulated the Ems Telegram reporting French demands to his king in a way that deliberately insulted the French. Bismarck wanted this war to get the remaining German states (save for the Austro-Hungarian Empire) to fall in line behind Prussian leadership, making a united Germany a reality.

The Prussians and their German allies took advantage of their superior artillery, railroads and mobilization system to rapidly overwhelm the reckless and poorly led French, resulting in an utter victory capped off with their triumphant march into Paris nine months later. The House of Bonaparte fell from power for the last time, Germany was united, and the newborn Third French Republic would harbor a deep resentment over the annexation of Alsace-Lorraine by the German Empire that contributed to the outbreak of World War I 43 years later.

But what if...the French had been better prepared for the struggle, and thus managed to win? The smartest move Napoleon III could have undertaken would be to not respond to Bismarck's provocations at all, but that would be out of character for a man as vain and reckless in foreign policy (witness his ultimately disastrous attempt to make Archduke Maximilian of Austria into the Emperor of Mexico from 1864-67, which served no reasonable goal for France). Thus, assuming Napoleon still goes to war, his best chance would have been to use France's larger standing army to invade the Rhineland before the German alliance can fully mobilize its strength; historically, the French were too slow on the draw and the Germans mobilized in two weeks, after which the French high command lost its nerve and made the disastrous decision to fight defensively.

So, that is the point of divergence: the French move faster and more aggressively right out of the gate, with Napoleon III directing his forces from Thionville towards Trier in the Rhineland. The Prussians are unable to mobilize quickly enough to stop the French before they occupy the Rhineland, and their smaller standing army loses a few battles trying (and failing) to prevent this outcome. King Wilhelm I of Prussia loses his nerve and backs down, ending the war in a French victory.

So, what happens? A short, victorious war is exactly what Napoleon III needs to shore up his regime's crumbling domestic popularity after the debacle that was his Mexican intervention and amidst the growing strength of Republican conspiracies: with a major victory over the 'upstart Prussians' under his belt and French patriotic fervor spiking to new heights, his rule over France will become virtually unassailable. The Emperor would be giddy at his triumph and annex as much of the Rhineland as he can get away with (and likely Luxembourg too, as he nearly annexed it in 1867 before Prussian threats and British mediation got him to back down), to the fury of the German people and the great consternation of the rest of Europe. The conservative pro-war party in Paris, led by Napoleon's wife Eugenie of Montijo, would also be a beneficiary. Napoleon's son, the Prince-Imperial Napoleon Eugene, would succeed him either in 1873 when he dies or a little earlier than that if he abdicates (by 1870, Napoleon III was an old and sickly man well past his physical prime). The rump Papal States (consisting of Rome and its environs) would still survive under Bonaparte protection, making for a persistent sore point in Franco-Italian relations.

On the flipside, it would be Germany that develops a deep desire for vengeance on France, not the other way around. The unification of Germany would still likely occur (albeit more slowly), this time driven by fear and loathing of French aggression rather than a jubilant sense of triumph over the old Napoleonic enemy, even if Bismarck is sacked by King Wilhelm: by this point in time, Prussia has already consolidated northern Germany into a confederacy led by itself while only Baden, Bavaria, Hesse-Darmstadt and Wurttemberg remained nominally independent, and even they had effectively become Prussian vassals after the former's victory over Austria in 1866. An alternative possibility is that the southern German states remain independent, break their ties with Prussia over Bismarck's failure to deliver victory, and gravitate back towards Austria: however, the Prussia-led North German Confederation is here to stay. Whether as the head of a united Germany or just the NGF, the Prussians would pine after the Rhineland just as France historically did over Alsace-Lorraine.

The grand European alliance networks which historically built up to WWI would change quite radically in the world of a French victory over Prussia. France would pursue links with Austria-Hungary and Russia to contain the vengeful Prussians/Germans. On the other hand, Britain would continue to see France as its old enemy (as the Germans would not be considered a worthy rival for world dominance in a world where they lost the Franco-Prussian War) and align with the Germans and Turks, their old allies, instead of engaging in a diplomatic reversal to ally with long-time rivals France and Russia as they did historically. The Italians would naturally gravitate towards the Anglo-German/Prussian bloc, out of a desire to complete their own national unification by seizing the French-backed Papal States and Austrian-held Venetia & southern Tyrol.

Napoleon IV may opt to marry Princess Beatrice of Britain, Queen Victoria's youngest child, to cool tensions with the British, or the Austro-Hungarian Kaiser Franz Josef's eldest surviving daughter Archduchess Gisela to reinforce a Franco-Austrian alliance against Prussia. Either way, he was historically a hot-blooded and warlike prince (to the point of getting himself killed fighting the Zulus) - by 1870 he is 14, and thus it may be too late to change his personality - and if he chooses to follow in his father's footsteps & assert French power on a global scale, confrontation with Britain (regardless of whether or not he marries Princess Beatrice) becomes inevitable. World War I would likely still occur, if not from Austrian tensions in the Balkans then certainly from Anglo-French tensions in Africa or Asia and the lingering Franco-German rivalry: this time, it will pit a Franco-Russo-Austrian 'Entente' against an Anglo-Germano/Prusso-Turko-Italian 'Alliance'. As for who would win such a contest, there are too many variables between a French victory in 1870/1 and how & when this conflict will break out to answer such a question.

Hiatus over. WI: Atenism survives?

Finally back in the saddle, illness and job hunting have kept me away from this blog for far too long. As usual, I'll update every Monday, Wednesday and Friday. Without further ado:

The aten, or Egyptian sun disk

In 1353 BC, the throne of Egypt passed from Pharaoh Amenhotep III to his eldest son, also named Amenhotep. The first five years of Amenhotep IV's reign were uneventful, as the new Pharaoh occupied himself with building projects - including, though few would have found it questionable or guessed that it was a sign of things to come, temples to the 'Aten' or Egyptian sun disk. However, in his fifth year, Amenhotep renamed himself 'Akhenaten' ('effective for Aten') and abandoned the traditional Egyptian pantheon in favor of worshiping Aten, built a new city called 'Akhetaten' to serve as his capital, and disbanded the priesthoods of the other gods.

However, Akhenaten died after seventeen years on the throne of Egypt, and the cult of Aten waned soon after. The royal succession that followed his death was chaotic: he was first succeeded by a woman called Neferneferuaten, whose identity is unclear - she was either his Great Royal Wife (principal spouse) Nefertiti or one of their daughters - and then by his son Tutankhaten, the famous King Tut, who was only nine or ten at the time of his ascension to the throne and who spent his reign under the thumb of powerful advisers. It was due to the influence of these powerful conservative statesmen, such as the Grand Vizier Ay and the general Horemheb, that Tutankhaten reversed his father's efforts to establish an Atenist religion in favor of restoring the traditional Egyptian faith. Tutankhamun died young and the throne was eventually usurped by Horemheb, who mounted a campaign to erase as many traces of the Atenist period as he could.

But what if...Atenism had not faltered? Perhaps Akhenaten does not die while his son Tutankhaten is still underage, but instead lives another decade: thus, by the time he dies Tutankhaten is not approximately seven years old (as he was nine or ten when he took the throne two years later) but seventeen or eighteen, old enough and sufficiently indoctrinated into the Atenist faith that he will not simply do whatever the Amunist Ay and Horemheb ask of him. Then, Tutankhaten living longer (perhaps he never contracts malaria nor breaks his leg, both of which led to his historical death) and managing to father an heir with his sister-wife Ankhesenpaaten (historically renamed Ankhesenamun) would solidify the place of the Atenist faith in Old Egypt.

What are the medium to long-term effects? Well, most obviously, we are likely to get a reversal of Horemheb's campaign to erase all traces of Atenism and Akhenaten as well as his successors. Instead, the priesthood of the old Egyptian gods would still be suppressed and their objects of worship destroyed in favor of new Atenist replacements. Instead of a diverse extended family of gods and goddesses, Egyptians would now direct their prayers and hymns to the great sun disc alone in temples.

Politically, a longer-lived Atenism would reinforce the process of centralization in Egypt that was already going on at the time of Akhenaten's reign. Under Atenist belief, nobody could directly worship the Aten except the Pharaoh and his wife: everyone else was still supposed to worship the Pharaoh as an intermediary between them and the Aten, in a continuation of the traditional worship of the Pharaoh as the intermediary between the divine and the Egyptian people. Akhenaten also centralized control of the army, national administration and religion (priestly goods and estates were confiscated for the state in his reign) into his new capital at Akhetaten, a process which was reportedly open to corruption among royal officials but would have continued unimpeded in a world where Atenism lasted longer.

Akhenaten reigning longer would also have positive implications for Egypt's foreign policy. Despite the initial laxness of his foreign policy where it concerned the stability of the Egyptian sphere of influence in the Levant - among the cache of Amarna Letters, archived correspondence between Akhenaten's government and their Levantine vassals, were sixty letters from the vassal-king Rib-Hadda of Byblos in Lebanon begging for Akhenaten's aid against the encroachment of the rival kingdom of Amurru, which Akhenaten replied to with increasingly annoyed refusals until Rib-Hadda was ultimately killed - Akhenaten did ultimately manage to preserve Egypt's hold over most of the Levant in the face of the growing Hittite Empire to the north. Should he live longer and Tutankhaten avoid an early death, Egypt may have been able to keep most of the Levant under its influence rather than lose Syria to the Hittites, as Tutankhaten/amun's successor Ay did after he provoked a Hittite invasion by assassinating a Hittite prince who was en route to marry Tut's widow Ankhesenamun.