I'm posting it here instead of the Plot Bunny thread, because I'd like others to add their ideas as well and perhaps we could develop this AU more thoroughly. Instead of happening in 1991, the first book takes place in 1791.

There are obvious changes that must follow. Not only among characters (Hermione raised in 1780s Britain is going to be different) but in the entire world as well.


Here is a quick timeline to illustrate how things are going now. Canon dates are in italic, to make them stand out:

1631 - The Ministry of Magic bans all magical beings other than wizards and witches from carrying a wand.

1637 – The Werewolf Code of Conduct is written.

1681 - Albus Dumbledore is born.

1691 - Ariana Dumbledore attacked by muggles, her father curses them in return. While in canon he went to Azkaban, perhaps here it would be different, considering there was no Statute yet. Maybe a lesser sentence?

1692 – The International Statute of Secrecy goes into effect. Meanwhile, Albus Dumbledore begins his first Hogwarts year.

1700 - Albus Dumbledore meets Gellert Grindelwald.

1726 - Tom Marvolo Riddle is born.

1737 - Tom Marvolo Riddle begins his first Hogwarts year.

1739 - Gellert Grindelwald's Possible Quest for Power. Obviously there was no World War II, but perhaps Grindelwald starts a muggle war creating strong changes in muggle history.

1759 - James Potter, Lily Evans and Severus Snape are born.

1770 - Around this time the First War against Voldemort begins.

1776 - The Continental Congress ratifies the declaration by the United States of its independence from the Kingdom of Great Britain. While this happened in Canon, perhaps it would be different here, due to Grindelwald's changes in the 1740s.

1780 - Harry Poter is born.

1781 - Potters die, Lord Voldemort defeated by baby Harry Potter, loses his body etc.

1789 - The French Revolution begins.

1791 - Harry Potter begins his first Hogwarts year.

 

Interesting, although I wonder if the French Revolution happening at the same time as the story means that Fleur will be different than she is in canon. Still I love alternate timelines.

Here are my additions to your timeline:

1744 - Grindelwald's muggle war continues for twelve long years. By the time Tom graduates high school, he joins Grindelwald's wizarding movement, quickly rising through the ranks.

1748 - Voldemort joins Grindelwalds inner circle, becoming one of his most feared Generals.

1750 - Grindelwald is defeated by Dumbledore, however his movement and war continues on for another year. Voldemort would later escape when the war ends and uses the knowledge he gained from it when he leads his own war against Wizarding Britian, using many of his assets and followers gained from the War to join him.

1774 - Voldemort extends his war to muggle Britain sparking a muggle civil war.

1779 - The American Revolution succeeds much more quickly because Britain is also dealing with their own civil war at the time.

1790 - Due to the changes created by Grindelwald, the French Revolution fails, however the rebellion forces the monarchy to permanently turn France into a Constitutional Monarchy similar to Britain.

 

That did actually happen, you know.

 

Yes, but in this timeline, it'd be permanent.

 

Would the king remain the puppet of the Assemblée, or would the changes to the American Revolution have an impact on the French constitution? Still, it wouldn't have been a real failure, I suppose.

Say, concerning Grindelwald. The muggle war he starts, perhaps it could be an earlier German unification. It would keep it somewhat similar.

 

Remember that the French Revolution led to the Napoleonic Wars. Perhaps not so much in this timeline.

 

Unless Voldemort supports Napoleans similarly to Grindelwald supporting Hitler. You'd obviously get a different Napolean because he wouldn't be emperor of France as a result of the Monarchy still being in power, but I could see Naploean being something similar to Prime Minister. Naploean might even marry into the monarchy in order to gain more power.

Both of Voldemort's wars would probably be more of a European Wizarding War rather than a British Wizarding War. Meaning both Voldemort and the Order of the Pheonix have much larger armies.

Also new additions to the timeline(one of which 1739 redone using Nazadel's idea of German Unification, as well as 1780 redone):

1702 - The canon threeway fight between Ablus, Aberforth, and Grindelwald takes place, however Ariana is not killed, but rather put in a catatonic state, resulting in her having a fate similar to Frank and Alice Longbottom of canon. Ariana would later live another 70 years at St Mungo's Hospital before passing away in her sleep.

1739 - Grindelwald begins his quest for power by sparking a large muggle war using the idea of German unification. A united Germany and Austria begin what some would later call the Great European War and a precursor to the World War that would centuries later follow.

1780 - Harry Potter and Neville Longbottom are born. Meanwhile Voldemort kills his former leader Grindelwald in Nurmengard.

 

I'd read it.

 

I dunno if this is something that's widely known (especially among the Americans in the audience) but the French Revolution was a fucking bloodbath, and Napoleon was a warmonger to a frankly insane degree. If Grindelwald put a halt to the Revolution before the reign of Robespierre and Saint-Just, then three fucking cheers for Grindelwald.

 

I think that "Napoleon is a midget" propaganda campaign that the Brits pulled off did a number on his bloodthirsty warmonger rep here in the states.

Edit: Also I think that the events of our own country's formation gives us a tendency to see rebellion in a more positive light despite the actual circumstances and consequences of them.

 

I'm pretty sure everyone knows this. (Yes, even us Americans...) But really you'd just be moving the bloodbath 50 years earlier, so no cheers for Grindelwald.

 

Yeah, God knows us here murricans have never taken a history class. Napoleon's a kind of ice cream, right?

 

If you move your timeline forward 15 years -- or just the Grindelwald portion -- to 1754, you can catch the Seven Years War, which was essentially a world war. Likewise, you could move the Seven years War back to fit your timeline.

Imagine a Durmstrang split along nationalist lines, the Patil family fighting for or against the British wizards in India. French and English wizards encountering Native magics in the North American wilderness.

 

War of Jenkins' Ear waged from 1739 till 1748, and was mostly a part of War of the Austrian Succession ( 1740-1748 ), which in intself consisted of First and Second Silesian Wars, First Carnatic War in India and King George's War in North America. All of it ended with signing the treaty of Aix-la-Chapelle/Aachen in 1749.

Which happened in real life, and was supposed to last, but it did not come to last because of politics and kings supposed flight from capital - which in itself is bullshit, as he was "escaping" using a totallty pimped out carriage that could be decribed in modern terms as a Golden Gleaming Porsche With A Squadron of Cavalry for Escort.

But, ad meritum - without France changing into Republic, you cant have Napoleonic Wars. Without them you don't have the most significant and important event in the XIX century history of Europe that shaped the course of history for the next 200 years.

How can changes to the American Revolution affect the French Revolution? The only real world effect that mattered was the strain on the finances of Kingdom of France, which was supporting the Americans. If we shorten the period of support, it would not change too much - France was having huge problems with its debt, taxes and overall finances.

--- --- ---
@Xandrel - 1791? I see what you did there - 03.05.1791 Also remember what I wrote about Wizarding Poland history - you could use it as ideas for a brewing conflict, that is both serious, but will not affect the main characters personally.

 

Well, what can I say? :awesome

 

The French Revolution, more specifically the legal aspects of the first constitution, were influenced by the American Revolution. One of the factions specifically wanted to invest the king with the powers of the president of the United States of American, e.g. the power veto. If the American Revolution turned out differently, the French Constitution would have turned out differently as well.

 

If the American Revolution would fail, it would change nothing - the republican ideal would go on. Also, changing one small detail that had an effect on a greater event, would not change the entire event. Trust me on this - trying to create a believable historical "what if" scenario is a nightmare, and usually consist of at least three historians "discussing it" - i.e. screeming at each other, throwing books and source materials and claiming their oponents are idiots that forgets basic facts*.

* - "basic facts" for historians are usually things that people don't usually know or care about

I would propose a simple rule - the muggle history happened as it happened. trying to change it, leeads only to a giant clusterfuck discussion abpout what changed, why it changed, how the changes affected other events, and so forth, and so forth. It isn't worth the time.

 

I did not state either would fail. I am going further on what Nerdman proposed.

Yet in this proposed timeline the Constitutional Monarchy survives. And the result of the American Revolution really isn't a small detail.

I can confidently say that it happens quite civilly at my university.

I agree that it isn't worth the time, but we do it anyway, don't we? The largest problem of course is that if we have any knowledge of the period at all, it is often in different areas. I'm mostly familiar with the political, cultural and ecclesiastical contexts as those pertain to my major as an art historian. We all look at it from different points of views, emphasizing different contexts and events, and therein lies the problem.

 

I was referring to how the ideals of the French Revolution mirroring America's own, and America's pro-France slant towards the Napoleonic Wars, plus the Louisiana Purchase, might lead to Revolutionary and Imperial France being looked at with a less-than-impartial eye in American history books. God knows there ain't a country on Earth that hasn't been guilty of touching up it's own history books at one point or another.

Careful with leaping to assumptions, you might give the impression that there's a widely-held belief that the American education system is hilariously inadequate or something.

 

Well, I for one don't remember the French Revolution or Napoleon being looked at too favorably in my history classes. As I recall we spent a lot of time looking at drawings of decapitated heads and comparing Napoleon to Hitler.