Miscellaneous <1900 (Alternate) History Thread

[Beleriond]

Anyone know of any good Henry Fitzroy Self-Inserts? I've seen and read a few Henry VIII SI's but no Henry Fitzroy ones. It doesn't necessarily have to be an SI. A story where Fitzroy happens to survive tuberculosis and Henry VIII names him heir out of panic when his only son nearly dies. Ideally, it wouldn't be written in Elizabethan English.

 

[FalconHonour]

Anyone know of any good Henry Fitzroy Self-Inserts? I've seen and read a few Henry VIII SI's but no Henry Fitzroy ones. It doesn't necessarily have to be an SI. A story where Fitzroy happens to survive tuberculosis and Henry VIII names him heir out of panic when his only son nearly dies. Ideally, it wouldn't be written in Elizabethan English.

Not to blow my own trumpet but: https://archiveofourown.org/works/19819375

My current TL: Titulus Princeps might also fit the bill!

 

[Beleriond]

Not to blow my own trumpet but: https://archiveofourown.org/works/19819375

My current TL: Titulus Princeps might also fit the bill!

Thanks. I'll take a look.

 

[sampleswift]

When did ninjas go extinct? (Of course, "Video Game/Movie Ninjas" probably never existed, not even in feudal Japan. Ninjas did exist in feudal Japan, but they likely bore little resemblance to the pop-culture versions). I'm thinking it was the long period of peace in the Tokugawa era (1600s-early 1800s), when a long period of relative peace meant that there was no more need for stealthy assassins, and the central government wiped them out?

 

[Chillvillain]

I was thinking, would it have been useful for a Christian dynasty to declare that they were directly descended from one of Jesus's apostles, the way that the Abbasids and Fatimids declared descent from the Prophet Muhammad's family? Some of the apostles had wives, so it is not completely out of the question that they had children.

 

[Beleriond]

I was thinking, would it have been useful for a Christian dynasty to declare that they were directly descended from one of Jesus's apostles, the way that the Abbasids and Fatimids declared descent from the Prophet Muhammad's family? Some of the apostles had wives, so it is not completely out of the question that they had children.

The closest example I can think of to what you're looking for is probably the Solomonic_dynasty of Ethiopia. Another might be the English monarchy. Granted, they never claimed direct descent from an apostle, but Henry VIII did establish the anglican faith with the english monarch as its head.

 

[TheRockofChickamauga]

I was thinking, would it have been useful for a Christian dynasty to declare that they were directly descended from one of Jesus's apostles, the way that the Abbasids and Fatimids declared descent from the Prophet Muhammad's family? Some of the apostles had wives, so it is not completely out of the question that they had children.

I would argue that that idea already exists, considering the Popes claim apostolic succession going back to Peter. Of course, they don't claim to be familial descendants of Peter or any of the other apostles, but they certainly used the papal connection to the apostolic legacy to their political advantage for centuries.

 

[John Fredrick Parker]

So was looking to see if we had any good AH discussions on the Second Fitna, and it seems those we do have are pretty short, and focused on one of two scenarios: Islam fracturing earlier (here, here), or Zubayr prevailing (here), or the Alids (here). Anyone think a new discussion thread could offer more?

- - - - -

Also looked at an old thread on “What if Richard II wasn’t deposed”, in part to see if “No Lancastrian Phase of the HYW” is discussed. Turns out, England likely isn’t done with France yet even in this scenario:

Regarding France, Orleans and Burgundy were headed toward a confrontation and would have had one regardless of what happened in England. So there is a fair chance of a civil war breaking out in France. Given Richard II’s marriage to Isabella of Valois, he would have cause to involve himself in that civil war even if only in a political or limited fashion. Which aide do y’all see him supporting. Technically both sides were fighting in the name of King Charles VI, who Richard II had no ill blood toward. I’m just wondering if Richard II might support the Burgundians due to their commercial importance or perhaps Orleans and Armagnac.

As to foregin policy I suspect Richard will keep his OTL for the moment but when the Armagnac-Burgundian Civil War properly flares up, Richard may be pressured or perhaps see an opportunity to engage in France, although maybe not to the same level as Henry V in OTL, which in the long term could actually be a good thing for the English.

 

[iatecreepypasta]

If the germans have taken argentina and french coumbia spain peru would the britiish join in and take bolvia 1820-1890 the french take grand Columbia losing venuezula germans then take Patagonia then Argentina 1876 then spain took over peru after the Spanish Peruvian war in 1879 the British then fearing they would be left out eventually took bolvia in 1882 naming it Charcas could it be possible or is it just ASB advice?

 

[ramones1986]

As I'm revisiting scenarios in relation to the Jutes in the British Isles, I always saw this comment from one of the threads:

Currently the controversy in the Netherlands is that the evidence shows that what we call Frisian language is in fact the product of Anglo-Saxon 'Inguevonic' speakers moving into the territory and replacing the natives.

So strictly it would the name stayed but not the people.

As you can imagine this is a subject of considerable controversy.

I wonder where did the (the currently banned) user Zen9 got his/her source.

 

[Kaiser Bob]

Been reading a lot about very early New Zealand colonial history, and been thinking of a few potential points of divergence, two main ones in particular-

14 April, 1840 - Ngati Kahungunu war party raids the fledgling NZ Company settlement at Britannia, mortally wounding 11 year old Henry Eaton. Several settlers, including Richard Eaton and William Dorsey later testified at the inquest that they were armed and looking for the attackers, but they got away.

Spoiler

IRL Henry Eaton died about a month after, so feelings had cooled down considerably and there was little tension with the Maori over it. If the men had found the warriors though, and the incident was more bloody than IRL, then there could have been more consequences.
The Kahungunu had been at war with the settlers allies the Te Ati Awa as recently as the year before, and had raided and killed Te Ati Awa chief Puakawa in February, so perhaps it could have ended with a resumption of that war, only this time with European involvement. If they invade the Kahungunu territory in the Wairarapa, and perhaps defeat them and claim the land, it would speed potential colonisation as IRL the land wasn't bought until the mid 1850s.
Also on the 14th, Captain Pearson of the ship Integrity was brought to the NZ Company's court over a dispute regarding some cattle he'd been chartered to bring over, IRL he didn't recognise the authority of the court, since the company was running things as if they were a republic, and not under British/Colonial authority, and ended up escaping, then sailing north and telling the Lieutenant-Governor about the Company's independent rule. This ended up with troops being sent down in June, to tear down the United Tribes flags and force the Company settlers to swear oaths of allegiance.
If there had been a battle that same day, maybe the guards would be more watchful, and Pearson would fail to escape- meaning it would at least take longer for the colonial government to realise what was going on in Britannia, which would allow the Company to have more time to get further entrenched and build more infrastructure. By the time time the troops arrived IRL they already had a Constitution, Council, President, Court system, Constabulary and beginnings of a Militia, with the town having a bank, multiple pubs, and a few other industries setting up. They didn't recognise the Lt Governors proclamation of sovereignty as applying to all of NZ, so it would be interesting to have them stay independent for longer.

20 April, 1840 - There's also potential for a war in the North, the very same week. Some time earlier, a settler named Patrick Rooney had been murdered by a native named Kihi, of the Ngapuhi tribe. He was handed over by other members of his tribe, and they were actually all quite satisfied with the British law, but the feeling among the whites was that the Maori would be trouble, as this was the first trial for murder held in NZ.

Spoiler

During the examination, held in the church at Russell, as there wasn't a proper courthouse, a chief named Haratua arrived with more than three hundred armed warriors, surrounding the church and leading a haka - which included firing their muskets.
Magistrate Lt Willoughby Shortland who was presiding over the trial assumed that they had hostile intentions, but a missionary who was present as a witness managed to convince him otherwise - they were protesting against Kihi's killing of the settler; but still most of the whites fled the church, and boats were hurriedly sent over to Okiato to pick up the detachment from the 80th Regiment that had only just arrived a few days earlier from Australia.
Lieutenant Best and his men raced into more than a dozen boats, and speed as fast as they could to the shore - they landed on shore only to find that the Maoris weren't in fact massacring all the whites like they'd been told, but they were still all around the Church and sometimes firing in the air. They ended up peacefully asking the Maori to leave, and return the next day to see the trial - which they did happily.
If Shortland and his few Police present in the Church weren't convinced of the Maories true intentions, or Lieutenant Best's men simply shot the first Maori they saw when they came ashore to reports of a massacre, this could have easily turned into a full on battle - which would have certainly ended up with the sack of Russell 5 years ahead of schedule, by Haratua instead of Hone Heke. The survivors might have fled to Okiato, where there was a small depot and some other buildings, or perhaps even to New South Wales, if things spread further.
I assume that any war breaking out in the North would probably mean the death of the Treaty of Waitangi, as it would be a war with the same tribes who had first signed, and would have been influential in getting so many others to do the same. The government of NSW might try to salvage something though, as at this point NZ is still a sub-colony of theirs.
A war in the north would also distract the government from reigning in the independent streak that the settlers in the south had. If one or both wars broke out, it might bring back the older NZ reputation of bloody savages and cannibals, and give a strong boost to the opponents of colonisation that had been in high British govt and church circles.
Let things get too wild, and you could end up with a United Tribal north island (perhaps with just the NZ Company settlers at the bottom), and a French south when the French settlers arrive in Akaroa in August? Maybe the British govt won't step in when the NZ Company tries to sell the Chatham Islands to that guy from Hamburg.

 

[sampleswift]

In medieval times, the Roman Catholic Church didn't allow the dissection of human bodies/cadavers? IIRC that's one reason why medical knowledge in Europe was so backwards? (Medical knowledge in the Muslim world was significantly more advanced).