Miscellaneous <1900 (Alternate) History Thread

Bytor

Monthly Donor
In the Treaty of Brétigny (1360), do I read things right that Gascony, Guyenne, Poitou, etc… no longer had the King of France as their suzerain and as such were no longer fiefs of or part of the Kingdom of France? Or were they just specially exempted from the usual duties of vassalage?

I only know the broad outlines of the era, but I had been under the impression that the King of England only held those French fiefs in personal union from the King of France and never outside of that?
 
‘Most Diverse, Vocabulary-Rich English Language’. For instance, I wonder if there are ways for it to incorporate more loanwords from Asian and Slavic languages than it did IOTL.
 

Grey Wolf

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Does anyone have a link to the map I remember seeing that showed the 13 colonies (that would become the USA) plus the putative colonies West of the Appalachians - Vandalia was one, but I think another either had the name of Catherine or of Brunswick in it?
 
More democracy for Russia, perhaps? Maybe the Russian Revolution wouldn't have happened. We could instead have had a sort of constitutional monarchy, with a slow transition towards true democracy. None of that Lenin/communist stuff.

Yeah, a British-style constitutional monarchy with a prime minister and democratically elected parliament that has actual power over the Tsar would steer Russia in a much better direction than Bolshevik dictatorship did, at least in the short term.

I’m guessing that this reformed Russia would still be economically capitalistic, though how this bodes for continued industrial buildup compared to the centrally planned breakneck efforts of Stalinist Russia, I don’t know (though I’ve still seen it mentioned that the empire was slowly but surely industrializing even under OTL Nicholas’s reign) . Hopefully, a liberalized Russia means more trade with the outside world, more options for the average Russian consumer, and less Russian lives callously spent than IOTL.
 
Yeah, a British-style constitutional monarchy with a prime minister and democratically elected parliament that has actual power over the Tsar would steer Russia in a much better direction than Bolshevik dictatorship did, at least in the short term.

I’m guessing that this reformed Russia would still be economically capitalistic, though how this bodes for continued industrial buildup compared to the centrally planned breakneck efforts of Stalinist Russia, I don’t know (though I’ve still seen it mentioned that the empire was slowly but surely industrializing even under OTL Nicholas’s reign) . Hopefully, a liberalized Russia means more trade with the outside world, more options for the average Russian consumer, and less Russian lives callously spent than IOTL.
How about WWI? Russia's conduct in the war might have been different, which might have changed the events of some key battles, although Germany would still lose if Russia fights better. If Russia is worse in this timeline, then Germany might have a shot at winning.

I'm also wondering if the Nazis still rise to power. IOTL, the Nazis ran off of an anti-Bolshevik platform, talking about how the Jews brought communism to Russia and how they want to make Germany a communist state, etc. If there was no Russian Revolution, there might be no Nazis coming to power.
 
How about WWI? Russia's conduct in the war might have been different, which might have changed the events of some key battles, although Germany would still lose if Russia fights better. If Russia is worse in this timeline, then Germany might have a shot at winning.

I'm also wondering if the Nazis still rise to power. IOTL, the Nazis ran off of an anti-Bolshevik platform, talking about how the Jews brought communism to Russia and how they want to make Germany a communist state, etc. If there was no Russian Revolution, there might be no Nazis coming to power.

Potentially? Though I'm unsure how his relationship with his generals actually was, I'm guessing that an authoritarian like Nicholas II wouldn't have taken contrarian advice very seriously, even if it was to Russia's benefit to do so. Maybe Russia liberalizing on the economic front in addition to the political one would foster a stronger industrial base to sustain a war effort without bleeding the empire dry? Not to mention the adoption of military technology that'd make a difference in a war where all the major participants have arrived with a plethora of nasty new weapons like tanks, machine guns, and poison gas to name a few.

As for the Nazis, I'm guessing that'd depend on how the Great War ends. For example, if it wraps up in Russia's favor and its liberal reforms don't carry over to how it deals with defeated enemies...that may not be as likely to butterfly the social forces that got Weimar Germany's nationalistic extremists into power IOTL (even if they're not necessarily Nazis in this one).
 
Last edited:
Well he would be likely less interested in Maria Teresa of Spain for Louis than his wife so is possible who the Dauphin married either Margaret of Savoy or Henriette of England
And if Louis XIII had accepted the project of marriage between his son and the Infanta of Spain before his death, could it have changed the current conflict?
 
On a scale from 1 to 10, how ASB would it be for France and Germany to end up with pretty much no border contact between them, due to an independent Swabia and a blown-up Luxembourg being sandwiched in between?
 
Does anyone the name of any British stagecoach companies? Everything I read tells me "a company did this" or "a company set up a route", or just tells me about the inns (e.g. http://www.wickedwilliam.com/principal-departure-coaching-inns-1819/) used as the starting and end points. But I assume the actual companies had names, but can't find what they were
From what I understand, apart from the Royal Mail, which ran multiple coaches, the majority of the companies just ran on one route, so used the name of the coach and/or route. For example, 'The Herald' Glasgow<>London coach or the 'Leeds Old Stage Coach' Leeds<>London.
For the latter, have a look at the advert for it on this page (https://djwilson22.wordpress.com/tag/stagecoach/) (search for 'Leeds Old Stage Coach advert' on the page) and you'll see that it was operated by J. Hanforth and M. Howe. There's then a reference to 'Another new coach, which commenced running from Mr. Wood’s in 1781, was the York and Scarborough Diligence ; but this concern was conjointly worked by Mr. Wood and Mr. Vincent from the Golden Lion, and in a year or two it went over to that inn entirely.'
This page (http://www.friern-barnethistory.org.uk/userfiles/file/The_Area/Transport/Stage-Coach-Routes.pdf) gives quite a few routes with operators.
It seems that it was the coaching inns themselves which operated many of the coaches. One reference for this is 'The Great North Road: London to York' by Charles G. Harper, available via gutenberg.org (https://www.gutenberg.org/files/46716/46716-h/46716-h.htm). On page 15/16 it says this (spoilered to keep this post a bit shorter):
In its prime the “Bull and Mouth” sent forth the Edinburgh and Aberdeen Royal Mail by York; the Edinburgh, Glasgow, and Aberdeen coach by Ferry-bridge to Newcastle, where the Glasgow passengers changed; the Glasgow and Carlisle Royal Mail; the Newcastle “Wellington”; Shrewsbury and Holyhead “Union” and “Oxonian”; Birmingham “Old Post Coach” and “Aurora”; Leeds Royal Mail and “Express”; and Leicester “Union Post Coach.”

The site of the “Swan with Two Necks” is now occupied by the London and North-Western and South-Western Joint Goods Depot, in Gresham Street. Modern sculptured keystones may be seen over the p. 16entrances, bearing the effigy of a double-headed swan. This sign, like that of the “Bull and Mouth,” is a corruption of a widely different term; originally, indeed, the “Swan with Two Nicks,” from the particular “nicks” with which the bills of the swans belonging to the Vintners’ Company on the Thames were marked. The City Companies each had their swans on the river, and even nowadays they are maintained on the upper reaches. The young cygnets were marked at the annual festival of “swan-upping,” at which the City magnates used hugely to enjoy themselves. The old and the new “nicks” of the Vintners’ Company are pictured here.

Old And New Swan NicksSo far back as 1556, the “Swane with ij Nekes at Mylke Street End” was known, and was then the property of the Vintners. In the coaching era it is best remembered as the headquarters of the great William Chaplin’s huge coaching business. Chaplin succeeded William Waterhouse, who had established himself here in 1792, issuing a curious token bearing the representation of a mail-coach on one side and that of the Double-Necked Swan on the other, with the legend, “Speed, Regularity, and Security. Payable at the Mail Coach Office, Lad Lane, London, W.W.”
There's also info here: http://www.historyofthorne.com/publications/pdf/stagecoaches.pdf

Edit: I got all of this by searching for 'companies running stagecoaches on great north road 19th century' using DuckDuckGo

Hope that's of some help!
 
Last edited:

Bytor

Monthly Donor
Anybody got links to any primers on how the USA ended up with it's utterly bizzare system of primaries to choose candidates? Not just for the president, but for the House and Senate, too, where it's possible to have multiple people from the same party on the ballot.
 
Two questions

First, in a alternate timeline, the Greeks lose the Battle of the Salamis and the Persians conquer the Peloponnese. With Greece now a part of the Persian Empire, colonists from the many Greek city-states flee to their Mediterranean colonies, including the Italian colonies which they called Magnia Greecia. Thanks to the massive influx of Greek soldiers, the Greeks are able to defeat the Carthaginians and retain Western Sicily.

Fearing what could happen if the Roman Republic won in their war against the Etruscans, the Greeks ally with the former to conquer the latter at around 340-330 BC. Rome is not sacked or destroyed, but is simply occupied by both the Greeks and the Etruscans.

So, with all of this being said, how would Rome fare under a occupation by both the Greeks and the Etruscans?

(I know it is historically inaccurate to refer to the Greeks of this time as if they were a united country, but I honestly don't know which Greek city state would prosper in this timeline and which would falter, so I'm using 'Greek' as a general term)

Secondly, the Greeks are bound to get into conflict with the Celtic people. Let's say the Spartans (what's left of them after the exodus to Tarentum) get into a fight with half a dozen Celts. Who would win in a fight? The Spartans or the Celts?
 
Last edited:
'Capitalist, Liberal-Democratic Russia'. As in, one that undergoes liberal reforms early enough to butterfly Bolshevism and establish a tradition of constitutional checks and balances in government. Not to mention spawn an economic engine to promote widespread commerce and industrialization, maybe even enough to challenge the United States for that mantle by the early 20th Century.
 
Top