Board Thread:Timeline Discussions/@comment-6912688-20130416211138/@comment-32656-20130419140318

You are a century off on the union of the crowns - the first monarch of both was James I, from 1603 onward. Not Anne, even remotely.

Nor is that at all the reason for the Act of Union. Simply put, far more efficient to have one government in a country instead of two.

1/5th of it gone, when everyone would lose about the same proportions, globally? Doesn't hurt.

There is a plague - the French cannot intervene.

"Closing" off a border is more or less impossible - about the only really successful method is to quite literally mine the entire border. The Scots could not have even come close to doing the job. All an such attempt would do is help the spread of the plague.

The colonies are largely so small that independence would be impossible.

I'm saying that Scotland could not even manage to send what you have them doing.

Sorry, but you are actually wrong about the HRE - Northern Italy, by 1700, had been outside of it for centuries, Burgundy had been French for at least most of one, Flanders split between Spain/Austria and France, and Holstein more or less Danish. Only Hesse and Bavaria of those you listed were actually "in" the empire by that point. And, quite frankly, Bavaria is one that is really only barely.

No way the Byzantines could conquer the rest of the Med. The small amount they did otl more or less bankrupted them.

HRE was far stronger than Gaul/France - France being stronger than the HRE did not occur until at best the mid-1600s (and, realistically, the mid-1700s is more accurate)

Just doesn't make sense, overall.

Scottish idea's better.