Miscellaneous <1900 (Alternate) History Thread

[prani]

So is it then still possible to kick the Turks out of the north in the early 14th century?

Ok let me give those two the credit where it is due, yeah the Turks would not be driven away. But that don't mean there were Hindu and Muslim polity both within India and outside India that wanted to destroy whichever Turkic power that held political control, even Turks conspired to overthrow the other Turk in power, cause the Turks themselves were not united (Shocking fact mostly to the right wing) how else would you explain the endless succession of dynasty, invasions and rebellions?

So the question, Is it possible to destroy Turkic Power in India? The answer is Yes but difficult, but it would easy to depreciate the Turkic political power to a point that it is nerfed ? Absolutely, this would cause the inflow of Turks into India to reduce as the going gets tough nobody wants to have at another try for power, cause remember the Turks were interested in India because it was easy to gain to political power and thus access to the riches of India, once you make that difficult because of you have a strong centralized empire or the other extreme, a Darwinian style survival of the fittest death duel between various polities, nobody outside of India is going to be interested in taking part in that slaughter fest.

 

[VVD0D95]

Ok let me give those two the credit where it is due, yeah the Turks would not be driven away. But that don't mean there were Hindu and Muslim polity both within India and outside India that wanted to destroy whichever Turkic power that held political control, even Turks conspired to overthrow the other Turk in power, cause the Turks themselves were not united (Shocking fact mostly to the right wing) how else would you explain the endless succession of dynasty, invasions and rebellions?

So the question, Is it possible to destroy Turkic Power in India? The answer is Yes but difficult, but it would easy to depreciate the Turkic political power to a point that it is nerfed ? Absolutely, this would cause the inflow of Turks into India to reduce as the going gets tough nobody wants to have at another try for power, cause remember the Turks were interested in India because it was easy to gain to political power and thus access to the riches of India, once you make that difficult because of you have a strong centralized empire or the other extreme, a Darwinian style survival of the fittest death duel between various polities, nobody outside of India is going to be interested in taking part in that slaughter fest.

Indeed that’s true. Do you think Hanmira was best placed to achieve such a thing?

 

[VVD0D95]

Would a story on Kamrupa and its resurgence be of interest? @prani @Rajveer Naha @Brahman @souvikkundu25140017

 

[prani]

Hanmira

I am sorry, I just don't buy this great man theory in History, cause IMO it has never happened. Could he have done it? Probably no, cause the military was cavalry oriented, so if fight turkic people on horse back guess who would win? Unless they change tactics to infantry, cause remember Hindus were terrible in cavalry but were good in metallurgy and infantry warfare then yeah.....some leader could have done it

 

[VVD0D95]

I am sorry, I just don't buy this great man theory in History, cause IMO it has never happened. Could he have done it? Probably no, cause the military was cavalry oriented, so if fight turkic people on horse back guess who would win? Unless they change tactics to infantry, cause remember Hindus were terrible in cavalry but were good in metallurgy and infantry warfare then yeah.....some leader could have done it

Indeed that’s true.

 

[Leonidas]

WI: Radical reconstruction caused the south to rise again and lose again to the union.

1. what would the union policy would be
2. how would this impact southern culture

By "rise again" do you mean a second full-scale civil war? I don't see that happening with the South still under military occupation and reeling from the damage of the last one. However, there were quite a few guerilla groups that terrorized free blacks and supporters of Reconstruction, and if they stepped up their attacks and targeted the federal government in some hard-to-ignore way, that could be characterized as a "second insurrection" and make the Radical Republicans' position more popular. It could also lead to some ex-Confederates being banned from politics, although I think it depends on the details of the attacks and how they're crushed. For example, if they caught Forrest leading a KKK attack, that'd be a blow against Confederate generals' political stature.

As for how this would impact the South long-term, it would ideally mean that the terrorists are crushed and the black population doesn't leave en masse in the Great Migration. With a more committed federal government and a longer period of Radical Reconstruction, the South could become accustomed to the new normal, and majority-black states like South Carolina and Louisiana would continue to vote Republican while others like Virginia could maintain their Readjuster coalitions of free blacks and Unionist whites. This would definitely be a better outcome, although it might make the split between Liberal and Radical Republicans more permanent and allow for a reactionary backlash elsewhere.

 

[Wendell]

What's the latest possible POD to avoid the Third Anglo-Maratha War and what might its consequences be long term?

 

[LibPrime]

How true is the claim that the French Revolution/Napoleonic Wars may have prevented a dominant France which has a similar government as to Britain?

 

[Grey Wolf]

How true is the claim that the French Revolution/Napoleonic Wars may have prevented a dominant France which has a similar government as to Britain?

What happens instead?

Can France manage to sort out the finances before its next war? It's not much good at avoiding war, well nobody was for all that long in the 18th century. Its reforms tended to get cancelled and up-ended by a new war. And by the end of the 1780s its finances were in a buggered state.

It can't even rely on some nice freak event like Louisiana turning out well, because that's Spanish. In fact, Spain and the USA are probably headed for war, and would France stay out of it?

Could it just sit there and do nothing? Well part of the problem is that whilst it may decide not to declare war on anyone, it doesn't preclude other powers from committing acts of war against it.

 

[da Racontor]

How true is the claim that the French Revolution/Napoleonic Wars may have prevented a dominant France which has a similar government as to Britain?

What happens instead?

Can France manage to sort out the finances before its next war? It's not much good at avoiding war, well nobody was for all that long in the 18th century. Its reforms tended to get cancelled and up-ended by a new war. And by the end of the 1780s its finances were in a buggered state.

It can't even rely on some nice freak event like Louisiana turning out well, because that's Spanish. In fact, Spain and the USA are probably headed for war, and would France stay out of it?

Could it just sit there and do nothing? Well part of the problem is that whilst it may decide not to declare war on anyone, it doesn't preclude other powers from committing acts of war against it.

The other thing about whatever the next war would be is that it would probably would resemble the previous "cabinet wars" more than the revolution and Napoleonic.

France may not be at war with all of Europe, Austria was an ally before the revolution.

The mass levy was very much a revolutionary thing. I can't imagine the kingdom even thinking of trying it. And even though France is still probably the largest land military without the mass levy it is a bit more even.
(The navy would be in existence, don't forget it was the French Navy that handled most of the British Navy during the American Revolution)

 

[LibPrime]

Could it just sit there and do nothing? Well part of the problem is that whilst it may decide not to declare war on anyone, it doesn't preclude other powers from committing acts of war against it.

That's true, but what power would seek to conquer parts of France? The UK certainly has its hands tied with its American colonies. Spain/Portugal has nothing to gain from conquering a couple of Caribbean islands. It's plausible, at least in the 1780s-90s, that France may maintain peace and, if God forbids Louis XVI from messing things up, use this time to reform.

Can France manage to sort out the finances before its next war? It's not much good at avoiding war, well nobody was for all that long in the 18th century. Its reforms tended to get cancelled and up-ended by a new war. And by the end of the 1780s its finances were in a buggered state.

Honestly it depends when the war begins. I doubt France in the 1790s could fight a war against the British, but perhaps in the 1800s-1810s they could. Also perhaps a revolt with the nobles and merchants teaming up, could've successfully force Louis to reform the state.

 

[vandevere]

What happens instead?

Can France manage to sort out the finances before its next war? It's not much good at avoiding war, well nobody was for all that long in the 18th century. Its reforms tended to get cancelled and up-ended by a new war. And by the end of the 1780s its finances were in a buggered state.

It can't even rely on some nice freak event like Louisiana turning out well, because that's Spanish. In fact, Spain and the USA are probably headed for war, and would France stay out of it?

Could it just sit there and do nothing? Well part of the problem is that whilst it may decide not to declare war on anyone, it doesn't preclude other powers from committing acts of war against it.

One possible way to avoid it may be to make a POD where Henry IV doesn't get assassinated. All through the 17th and 18th Centuries, there was a long line of French Kings reigning as children, with all the problems regencies usually create. I know we're going back a few hundred years, but I honestly believe keeping Henry IV alive might help in this regard...

 

[Votre Idéolinguiste Local]

How true is the claim that the French Revolution/Napoleonic Wars may have prevented a dominant France which has a similar government as to Britain?

Somewhat true, but not that exact. The part where the Revolution prevented the Kingdom of France to slowly reform is true, Louis XVI had a will to reform, and ideas, he just didn't do much to put them in place, and under his rule ministers had some more power and influence than under Louis XV. My guess is that he would die over the course of the 1820's at some point, with some reforms done, at least started in the 1790's, pressure would then be too much, but to reach the same level of constitutional monarchy as Britain, unless somehow the bourgeoisie and parliamentarian nobles have some new form of power, likely not under his reign. The Blood/Sword Nobility and Cardinals would be a bit split on the matter of reforming or not, on one hand it gives them more power, on the other hand it's moving away from their beloved traditions, and makes it easier for lesser nobles (parliamentarians) and bourgeois to rise up the ranks of society.

 

[LibPrime]

The Blood/Sword Nobility and Cardinals would be a bit split on the matter of reforming or not, on one hand it gives them more power, on the other hand it's moving away from their beloved traditions, and makes it easier for lesser nobles (parliamentarians) and bourgeois to rise up the ranks of society.

Thanks for the detailed response
Do you think that the traditionalists would prevent major reforms, unless some disaster occurred where all saw reform needed?
Also what is "Blood/Sword Nobility"?

 

[Votre Idéolinguiste Local]

Thanks for the detailed response
Do you think that the traditionalists would prevent major reforms, unless some disaster occurred where all saw reform needed?
Also what is "Blood/Sword Nobility"?

Blood Nobility, or Sword Nobility is the old noble families, descended from Frankish, Wisigothic and Burgundian Houses and their multiple splinter branches, as well as families ennobled for bravery in the war, essentially the nobility that didn't buy their titles.

Traditionalists wouldn't prevent anything because what matters is ministers, and even if the bourgeoisie and nobility is against the ministers' decisions, it's ultimately up to the King, so if he decides said ministers stay in place, they stay in place and Parliaments can shut their mouth or revolt.

 

[LibPrime]

they stay in place and Parliaments can shut their mouth or revolt

Would they be crushed easily like in the first and second Fronde?

 

[ramones1986]

Plausibility check: The Prince of Wales (or heir presumptive/apparent to the English/British throne) also held the position of the Lord of Ireland.

 

[30PrincesAndAKing]

Plausibility check: The Prince of Wales (or heir presumptive/apparent to the English/British throne) also held the position of the Lord of Ireland.

It doesn't seem that crazy to me, so long as we're talking about post-John.

So, a word on the title of English heirs apparent: besides 'atheling,' the first one with a title I'm aware of was William Adelin, who was 'Duke of Normandy.' This title lacked any substance; his father ruled Normandy proper. The next one I know of was Henry the Young King, who was named co-king by his father. Again, this title was not substantive; Henry II still called all the shots and all young Henry got was a fancy hat. I believe Richard I was only Duke of Aquitaine, his mother's title, prior to becoming king. This was already his life plan prior to his older brother dying, so it was substantive.

I don't believe John ever gave his son a title. Henry III likewise didn't give his son a title despite ample time and opportunity. Edward I was just 'Lord Edward,' and although he was given many lands to administer as heir, he held no titles pertaining to them. Edward I trots out a bunch of titles for his sons; basically anything he can collect. His first heir's title was 'Earl of Chester,' while of course his next heir became 'Prince of Wales.' Edward II was also Count of Ponthieu before he became Prince of Wales. In this case, Prince of Wales wasn't initially intended to be the heir's title. Edward II used the title sporadically throughout his life and never gave it to his son (Edward III was only Earl of Chester).

The purpose of such titles was multifaceted. They conferred the heir with special status. They (sometimes) allowed him a chance to gain experience in land administration. They could also 'pass the buck' in an administrative sense; English kings routinely granted the title 'Duke of Aquitaine' to their sons to avoid having to do homage to the King of France, as they considered it humiliating. They could even solidify newfound claims (for example, I've heard the son and heir of Alexander III of Scotland was named 'Lord of Mann,' referring to the Isle of Man, which had been recently acquired by Scotland at the time).

Given the perimeters, an English heir's title could be anything. Yes, Ireland was thorny issue and I don't know of any medieval English king or king's son who actually succeeded in making good any claims on it. But, if such a thing ever were possible, I see no reason why a title for the heir is out of the question. There's no sovereignty issue like with Aquitaine, but theoretically the king could relinquish rule of Ireland to his son if he screwed up royally or required a puppet. So it has diplomatic value theoretically.

 

[Pax_Nihil]

It doesn't seem that crazy to me, so long as we're talking about post-John.

So, a word on the title of English heirs apparent: besides 'atheling,' the first one with a title I'm aware of was William Adelin, who was 'Duke of Normandy.' This title lacked any substance; his father ruled Normandy proper. The next one I know of was Henry the Young King, who was named co-king by his father. Again, this title was not substantive; Henry II still called all the shots and all young Henry got was a fancy hat. I believe Richard I was only Duke of Aquitaine, his mother's title, prior to becoming king. This was already his life plan prior to his older brother dying, so it was substantive.

I don't believe John ever gave his son a title. Henry III likewise didn't give his son a title despite ample time and opportunity. Edward I was just 'Lord Edward,' and although he was given many lands to administer as heir, he held no titles pertaining to them. Edward I trots out a bunch of titles for his sons; basically anything he can collect. His first heir's title was 'Earl of Chester,' while of course his next heir became 'Prince of Wales.' Edward II was also Count of Ponthieu before he became Prince of Wales. In this case, Prince of Wales wasn't initially intended to be the heir's title. Edward II used the title sporadically throughout his life and never gave it to his son (Edward III was only Earl of Chester).

The purpose of such titles was multifaceted. They conferred the heir with special status. They (sometimes) allowed him a chance to gain experience in land administration. They could also 'pass the buck' in an administrative sense; English kings routinely granted the title 'Duke of Aquitaine' to their sons to avoid having to do homage to the King of France, as they considered it humiliating. They could even solidify newfound claims (for example, I've heard the son and heir of Alexander III of Scotland was named 'Lord of Mann,' referring to the Isle of Man, which had been recently acquired by Scotland at the time).

Given the perimeters, an English heir's title could be anything. Yes, Ireland was thorny issue and I don't know of any medieval English king or king's son who actually succeeded in making good any claims on it. But, if such a thing ever were possible, I see no reason why a title for the heir is out of the question. There's no sovereignty issue like with Aquitaine, but theoretically the king could relinquish rule of Ireland to his son if he screwed up royally or required a puppet. So it has diplomatic value theoretically.

Did the title 'Lord of Ireland' actually have administrative powers or was it just an honorific?

 

[30PrincesAndAKing]

Did the title 'Lord of Ireland' actually have administrative powers or was it just an honorific?

When held by John prior to becoming king (and later by he and his heirs in conjunction with the royal title) it was certainly intended to have real powers. Ireland was supposed to be John's sphere of influence (with Henry the Young King's being England and Normandy, Richard's being Aquitaine, and Geoffrey's being Brittany). But John's introduction into Ireland did not go well and he became a regional lord in England itself (Gloucester was his inheritance).

John's heirs certainly wanted the title to have some substance to it, and various inroads were made to that effect throughout the years, but it pretty much remained an honorific part of their titulary. Anglo-Norman families did settle there and gain varying degrees of regional clout (like the de Burghs), but I don't believe the degree of control exercised directly by the king was ever very high. The impact on Ireland itself was fairly substantial, but large parts of it were completely unaffected.

Let it be known that I'm hardly an expert on the subject of medieval Ireland, though so take this all with a large grain of salt.