Best monarch or head of state to kill off early for a more prosperous future
- Thread starter OldScifi
- Start date
Of course it may make a difference exactly *when* you kill him off.
If it's pre-1912 then presumably Champ Clark is nominated, in which case the US may not even be *at* Versailles. If later it's presumably Tom Marshall, in which case the same might be true, but not so ceertain.
But how long could they have stayed allied?
Russia's main export was ships' stores and no prizes for identifying the biggest customer. How long can any Tsar screw up Russia's economy by adhering to the Continental System?
Last edited:
he was not the only actor who unleashed the conflict eh !, his policies were perhaps too extreme ( in procedure or speed wanting to apply it ) but in perfect harmony with the imperial laws signed in Augsburg in 1555 by everyone (both Catholics and Lutherans) I think that to avoid this it would be necessary to kill Rudolph II and his policies in religious matters (which gave too much power to the Protestant nobility in the archducal lands, i.e. those who really unleashed the war) if the Habsburgs would have taken advantage of the French weakness in those years, the counter-reformation in their territories would have been much easier and almost painless (and above all the princes of the HRE could not have intervened to help their co-religionists and weaken the emperor, because they would have violated the Cuius Regio Cuius Religio)
Last edited:
Continental System was actually quite good for the Russian economy, no exporting food meant it had lower prices and peasants and lower class could afford more, without British industry coming in the local manufacturers started making their own products and setting up more industry and thus jobs and even with the ship stores, the Brits (the main buyers) simply turned to places like Canada to buy their wood and hemp. What actually happened was that the luxury products like coffee and tobacco weren't feeding the upper classes like the nobility and Czar Alexander's mercurial nature and noble influence on him meant he was only seeing the poor, poor nobles who couldn't have chocolate for their dessert and he thought that was more important than actually seeing the numbers.
It's why I insist that it would be better for Russia in the long run as they realize they don't need the Brits anymore and can supply their own stuff.
This is a point that is usually overlooked in debates on this question. The naval stores and grain trades never came back, at least not sustainably. There was an immediate pickup after 1812 with booming war demand, but once markets returned to normal British tariffs on timber and hemp rerouted the trade to Canada and others, the British iron industry was such that Baltic iron was no longer needed, and the postwar Corn Laws killed off Baltic and Black Sea grain imports for decades.
Yet another reason for why Alexander I sitting on the throne of Russia was good for the country in the short term but bad in the middle and long terms, honestly if only Czarina Catherine had actually bothered to raise Paul I well that he could rule at least efficiently, we could've seen a much better off Russia.
Considering the political structure of Russia at this time the fact that the nobility couldn't get chocolate mattered far more to the stability of the regime than peasants having cheaper bread. Especially as that cheaper bread meant the landowners income went down. Russia staying in the Continental System might have resulted in a coup.
Charles X for the Bourbon Restoration. Without him, we might be looking at a Bourbon Restoration surviving much longer, perhaps until the present.
I don't think you'd get something like OTL's Germany, not even with a surviving Weimar, simply because there wouldn't be any Nazis to shock Germany into being the way it is today. However, Frederick did plan to reduce the power of the chancellor and increase that of the Reichstag.
Wilhelm II gets a bad rep. Sure, he wasn't the best monarch ever, but he repealed Bismark's draconian anti-labor laws and greatly increased workers' rights. He also didn't build up Germany's navy to rival Britain, but to protect Germany's trade. Britain was the one that escalated the arms race, since Germany's economy was fast overtaking theirs. Wilhelm also actively tried to stop WW1, and so did the Tsar and Franz Josef. He also tried to keep his alliance with Russia, but Alexander III refused, and Nicholas's government wouldn't go for it. He also tried to ally with Britain, but their monarch hated Wilhelm personally.
Huh, thanks for that. Still, there are also primary sources that mention Germany building a fleet to protect its trade.
Theodore Roosevelt (1884) dies of heartache after losing his mother and first wife, thus never serves as a reformer in New York government beyond a brief stint in the legislature and never instigates the war with Spain as Assistant Secretary of the Navy (1898) on San Juan Hill with the Rough Riders and never becoming governor nor McKinley's vice president nor his successor (1912) before spoiling the reelection of his hand-picked choice to follow him due to assassination (1913-1914) in the Amazon from illness thwarting the reconciliation among conservative and progressive Republicans and whatever lingering influence he had in U.S. politics and culture.
I actually say for the leaders of Haiti to die and loose now this will sound controversial but based on Cody video had the revolution failed haiti would not have been as poor as plus slave masters in the americas are not paranoid over haiti and to add to the video it's likely the lost cause myth either never comes around or is less popular this is based on the idea that many confederates believed that a race war or what happened to Haiti would occur it never did so in part the myth comes from there to justify their failed doomsday prophecy and later like birth of a nation say it was becoming Haiti had the Dems not """" saved"""" the south
Imo you don't have that with out if Haitian revolution fails
As a system Haitian slavery was genocidal. There is a myth, that pre-revolutionary Haiti had a high standard of living. Haiti was economically productive but so were all manner of horrifically repressive regimes.Standard of living was high for the slave owners, but these amounted to less than 10% of the island’s total population. Survival rates among Haitian slaves, who made up the other 90%, particularly in the sugar plantations were very low, slaves were worked to death and then West Africans were brought over to replace them.
300,000 Haitian slaves were African-born on the eve of the revolution in 1790. That is two thirds of the entire slave population of 500,000.
Without the Haitian Revolution this genuinely evil system continues to claim the lives of tens of thousands of Africans.
The reason the slaves were unwilling to accept re-enslavement, the reason ex-slave armies were so fearless in battle, the reason they refused to surrender despite the horrific privations of the war, was that for the vast majority of Haitian slaves literal death was preferable to returning to slavery.
Like all AlternateHistoryHub videos Cody’s video only scratches the surface of the issue. Cody’s video ignores the extent to which the slave insurrection put pressure on white elites to end slavery. Haiti provided an example of an independent black republic in the New World. Many slave owners, particularly in the British colonies, opted to tactically support abolition and receive compensation rather than face a slave revolution which would rob them of their “property.”
The only people who benefit from your scenario are the slave owners.
Last edited:
In the other hand you also have less of a chance of Brazil becoming a empire - the planters here were just as afraid of a Haiti Part 2 happening here as the americans, and that was a major influence on them, once independence became a must, getting behind the plan of indendepence under a monarchy, since it was the least potentially-unstable option.
dcharles
Banned
I remember reading about a visitor to the island--he was having dinner with a French planter, a woman, who ordered one of the slaves to be thrown live into an oven for dropping a glass or something. Lost his appetite after that.
I don't deny the conditions were horrible but no source I read said Haiti scared some Brits in to abolition compared to the multiple sources we have of southerns being afraid of them being killed by their ex slaves the only impact I heard is economical as sugar trade was not that profitable when Haiti left , also the BBC says the defeat of the British trying to invade also changed opinion you can have the British still fail in 1790s and the french later take the island but this ignores that in Britain social changes and other economic changes were already occuring , so yes on the one hand we have a brutal system continue for a most likely two generations.
I just wonder if something close to apartheid evolves when France abolishes slavery, if yes Haiti is not as poor but has bad race relations going to the future if not then it has well a better future, so yes if we assume the latter Haiti is not as poor today and might be as well off as modern day Dominican republic and a whole impact on American slavery
Another question that Cody failed to address if the Congress of Vienna stills bans the slave trade how does France deal with it ? They can't import new ones so does a black market come to replace that or new laws appear to try to reduce the mortality rate or does the high mortality rate + the trade being abolish contributes to Haiti loosing it's profitability
Last edited:
I never knew the fear of Haiti reached that far south so in this case Brazil stays a Portuguese colony for longer? Also I assume the Brazilian despite no fear of Haiti like the south still want to keep the slaves due to economic reasons