AHC: Slave Revolution

In a slave keeping country, have the slaves launch a revolution that overthrows the established government. It can be any state throughout history from Rome to Brazil.
 
Shouldn't be hard to make this in happen in Haiti since it's basically what happened in OTL. Their revolution against the French colonial gover mentioned wasn't started by slaves, but the slave revolt is certainly when it kicked up and got serious.

EDIT: Didn't see other Haiti posts tI'll after I posted. Idk then after Haiti. It's probably easier earlier in history than later but I don't have any good ideas for it.
 
It wouldn't be too hard to get Saint-Domingue to secede from France during the chaos, after which a slave revolt occurs as OTL and over throws the government. OTL almost everyone in Haiti pre-revolution had a bone to pick with the metropolitan government.
 

Redhand

Banned
Could a late war Slave revolt in the CSA depose Jeff Davis?

No, it couldn't. The Union might be in position to back it, but Confederate military power, while diminished, would easily handle a slave revolt.

Maybe you could have the slaves on whatever Georgia farm he was hiding in after Richmond fell revolt and capture or kill him, but as for a 1864-65 revolt of slaves that manages to topple Davis? No. If the Union Army took 9 months to get into Richmond, a slave revolt isn't going to do the job.
 
No, it couldn't. The Union might be in position to back it, but Confederate military power, while diminished, would easily handle a slave revolt.

Maybe you could have the slaves on whatever Georgia farm he was hiding in after Richmond fell revolt and capture or kill him, but as for a 1864-65 revolt of slaves that manages to topple Davis? No. If the Union Army took 9 months to get into Richmond, a slave revolt isn't going to do the job.

Not on its own no but if you have a revolt in late 1864 that would probably be more than the Confederate military could handle. The army and Home Guard were already stretched to the breaking point by Grant, Sherman, and Thomas as it was. While theoretically the Confederate military could beat a slave uprising in OTL they didn't have the resources or free hand necessary to make that work. If anything a significant slave revolt would have probably ended the war faster as the disruption to logistics, increased troop demands, and sharp reduction in what qualifies as safe territory.
 
An interesting take would be a slave revolt breaking out in the Southern United States after Lincoln's first election but before the south began seceding. What would the impact be?
 
Not on its own no but if you have a revolt in late 1864 that would probably be more than the Confederate military could handle. The army and Home Guard were already stretched to the breaking point by Grant, Sherman, and Thomas as it was. While theoretically the Confederate military could beat a slave uprising in OTL they didn't have the resources or free hand necessary to make that work. If anything a significant slave revolt would have probably ended the war faster as the disruption to logistics, increased troop demands, and sharp reduction in what qualifies as safe territory.

Unless it erupted right inside Richmond, I don't really see the slaves beating the Union Army to it.
 
Mameluk's or Saqaliba's states (not only in Egypt, but in Persia or Al-Andalus as well) are good IOTL exemples. It shouldn't be that hard to have other exemples of former slaves states (understanding that it's more a slave coup than revolution per se)

The problem of slave rebellions are that they are generally poorly armed (there's exceptions of course), desunited and lack the structure to maintain themselves on a territory (when the former economical and productive structure was based on slavery, a slave rebellion is gonna make damages).
It generally requires alliances with other groups (such as in Haitian revolution, or Spartacus' attempt) or accepting dominance of one "privilegied" slave group.

The Zanj Revolt of 869–883 could have some chances to succeed with a worse Abbassid situation (earlier loss of Egypt and ultra-repressive reaction) and a more structurated Zaidit state (no proclamation of Mahdia would help for instance)
 
No, it couldn't. The Union might be in position to back it, but Confederate military power, while diminished, would easily handle a slave revolt.

Maybe you could have the slaves on whatever Georgia farm he was hiding in after Richmond fell revolt and capture or kill him, but as for a 1864-65 revolt of slaves that manages to topple Davis? No. If the Union Army took 9 months to get into Richmond, a slave revolt isn't going to do the job.

A Confederate slave revolt would be more workable in a timeline where the Confederacy consisted only of the Deep South, or even just South Carolina. Most of the Confederacy's military potential and industrial strength came from the Border South (especially Virginia), so a small Confederacy would be less able to resist a slave uprising. Moreover, the Deep South (especially South Carolina and Mississippi) had relatively dense slave populations which were generally much more harshly treated and much more separated from the free population than typical slaves in the Border South.

A possible timeline would be for South Carolina to secede over a failed Compromise of 1850 and be joined by at most two or three other states. TTL's US President at the time takes a "good riddance" attitude and lets the seceding states leave without a fight. The *Confederacy attempts to reopen the Atlantic slave trade (as was actually pushed for by some South Carolina politicians IOTL), both increasing their slave population and drawing British ire. With much the Deep South separated, gradual compensated emancipation might become politically viable in the remaining US. If it follows the pattern of the earlier gradual emancipations in the North, a lot of slaveowners would likely sell their slaves to the Deep South before the emancipation would take effect, further increasing the density of the slave population in the Deep South.

A decade or two down the road, something like OTL's Harpers Ferry raid is attempted by radical Northern and British abolitionists, but it's better organized, better funded, and attempted in much more fertile ground for revolution. It'd still be a very long shot to succeed outright, but might be just on the edge of plausibility.
 
In a slave keeping country, have the slaves launch a revolution that overthrows the established government. It can be any state throughout history from Rome to Brazil.

Depends how you define slaves i suppose. Taking a broad definition the Mamlukes carried out full scale regieme change in Egypt OTL.
On a more personal level;The Janaserries did for several Turkish sultans, with help on occassion from the Harem. Indeed the Harem and various Chief Enuuchs were not above the odd assiasination/coup d'etat. Eunuchs, Janeaserries, Concubines, and Mamelukes were not exactly slaves in a western sense, but neither were they wholly free.
 
Unless it erupted right inside Richmond, I don't really see the slaves beating the Union Army to it.

It wouldn't take over the Confederacy, but a slave rebellion could well be the straw that breaks the camel's back in terms of the CSA's ability to continue fighting.
 
With a few tweaks, Spartacus and the 2nd Servile War could suffice. The gladiator army breaks the mold of a lot of slave rebellions in that these were well trained, well armed fighters, many of whom not only fought in the arena, but were prisoners of war.

Perhaps with some support from Pontus or the Cilician Pirates, Rome (who I can't remember was in the middle of a civil war or just ended one) could implode. There's a reason the Romans handled the rebels so harshly-- they never wanted this to happen again!
 
Don't you mean the Third Servile War?

Anyway : keep in mind that the gladiatoral part of the army was only a minority. Most of it was made by latifundiae workers, poor but free peasantry, etc. Meaning only a really limited experience of war, in face of semi-professional armies.
It does seems, furthermore, that the goal of at least part of the slaves (probably for Spartacus' group, less clear for Crixos') wasn't to create a state but to leave the hell out of Italy : giving that an important part of the captives were coming from near provinces, such as Gauls, that was a more realistic plan than to try to pull an Antiochus.
 
Don't you mean the Third Servile War?

Anyway : keep in mind that the gladiatoral part of the army was only a minority. Most of it was made by latifundiae workers, poor but free peasantry, etc. Meaning only a really limited experience of war, in face of semi-professional armies.
It does seems, furthermore, that the goal of at least part of the slaves (probably for Spartacus' group, less clear for Crixos') wasn't to create a state but to leave the hell out of Italy : giving that an important part of the captives were coming from near provinces, such as Gauls, that was a more realistic plan than to try to pull an Antiochus.

Yes I think that the biggest problem of the slave rebellion was their lack of a leading "party" with a clear ideology (as e.g. the French in 1789 with Rousseau and Montesquieu or the Bolsheviks in 1917). They hadn't the goal to liberate all the slaves of the world, but to fight for their OWN freedom. Many of them would probably have bought their own slaves back own (after the victory).
 
Top