Miscellaneous <1900 (Alternate) History Thread
- Thread starter RMcD94
- Start date
From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_African-American_Medal_of_Honor_recipients:
William Harvey Carney was the first African American to perform an action for which a Medal of Honor was awarded, but Robert Blake was the first to actually receive the Medal (Blake's was issued in 1864, Carney did not receive his until 1900). It was common for Civil War Medals of Honor to be awarded decades after the conflict ended
Perhaps that's the source of the confusion? But there will be others on here with much better sources, I'm sure.
Thank you, I've actually found out what's going on. Carney's MOH is the earliest in that it was earliest action, but wasn't awarded until 1900. But yes there were several MOH awarded for actions after Carney's 1863 saving of his regiment's colours awarded before Carney got his. Apparently quite common for African Americans to get their awards many years late.
Toying with an idea:
In my Lincoln TL, Britain gets their hands on what would be the Congo Free State rather than Leopold II. This is due to Stanley approaching the British first (which he did IOTL) AND the British taking him up on his offer as a way to counteract French influence in the region (the French are more imperialist ITTL, including on the European continent with an alliance system, which scares the British). Anyway, tensions rise over Madagascar somehow between Britain and France. Neither want to go to war over the island, but neither want the island to fall into or stay in the other's hands. How plausible would it be to have the two powers approach Belgium/Leopold II about Madagascar as a neutral option to hold it?
In my Lincoln TL, Britain gets their hands on what would be the Congo Free State rather than Leopold II. This is due to Stanley approaching the British first (which he did IOTL) AND the British taking him up on his offer as a way to counteract French influence in the region (the French are more imperialist ITTL, including on the European continent with an alliance system, which scares the British). Anyway, tensions rise over Madagascar somehow between Britain and France. Neither want to go to war over the island, but neither want the island to fall into or stay in the other's hands. How plausible would it be to have the two powers approach Belgium/Leopold II about Madagascar as a neutral option to hold it?
Grey Wolf
Donor
Perhaps only so much in that the same tensions would be released as two decades later, so they might come to a conclusion two decades earlier?
You'd also still have the Boer republics independent, unless of course someone occupies them in the war.
Grey Wolf
Donor
This looks useful to you
List of African-American Medal of Honor recipients - Wikipedia
There's also one for Hispanic recipients
List of Hispanic Medal of Honor recipients - Wikipedia
Basically, yes. I was floating a Franco-Prussian War POD that still sees Germany formed, but with Napoleon III keeping his throne as well as what became Alsace-Lorraine in OTL, but I'm open to some third republic POD of one sort or another, just delivering at the urn of the century a war as impactful as the OYL First World War.
Last edited:
Did the Napoleonic wars trigger a revolution/rapid advancement in military tech like what occurred in WW1? I'm aware Napoleon's military strategies and doctrine were somewhat revolutionary (no pun) but did the years of the Napoleonic wars trigger the sort of rapid advancement and innovation in military technology like we saw develop over the combatively short 4 years of WW1?
I don't know maybe I thought it would some kind of Bioshock Infinite situation where their see as gods in the south and kind of tragedy figures in the north, it would be hard to view them as positives when the south has used them a symbolic gesture for they caused. I'm not a American who knows much about the legacies of men just had the idea for a while now.
@isabella Would it have been possible for Eleanor to marry Joao III instead of Manuel I in 1518?
Because he's always been a highly revered figure in American lore and one point frequently heard as to why is his distrust of political parties and factionalism. The Civil War is the ultimate example of that.
Is it plausible to have a British Prime Minister last for 10 years straight during the late 19th century (1872 to 1882 to be precise)? Specifically a liberal one? Benjamin Disraeli is out of the picture, relegated to the backbench in my TL.
Only if Manuel is dead as I can NOT see Charles accepting to be blackmailed and marry Isabella (in which he was absolutely NOT interested)