Miscellaneous <1900 (Alternate) History Thread
- Thread starter RMcD94
- Start date
How much would change for the Native Americans, if the tribes living in and close around the 13 Colonies, as well as those that already had some trade or diplomatic ties with the Colonies, had offered their aid to the americans in the War of Independence? Fighting the british in asymetric warfare, by cutting off remote forts from supply lines, training volunteers in their style of warfare, and actively providing warriors to serve in the continental army?
(The tribes essentially assume the british would steamroll them once the rebellion is snuffed out, so they think that helping the Continentals would be better in the long run).
Would it give the Native Americans more staying power, the ability to establish themselves as actual nations in the Continental Americans' eyes, or would it just slow their decline down? Maybe the path is entirely different, what do you think?
(The tribes essentially assume the british would steamroll them once the rebellion is snuffed out, so they think that helping the Continentals would be better in the long run).
Would it give the Native Americans more staying power, the ability to establish themselves as actual nations in the Continental Americans' eyes, or would it just slow their decline down? Maybe the path is entirely different, what do you think?
Well, the problem is that a number of tribes - or at least parts of tribes - did ally closely with the Rebels during the Revolutionary War. The Iroquois are a classic example due to the fact that not only did the tribe fall into civil war between those who sides with Britain and those who sided with the Colonials, but the Iroquois Confederacy was held in high esteem by the Founding Fathers and influenced the structure of the eventual American government. In the end, it didn't really do that all that much good, as they still found themselves marginalized by land hungry settlers in the years after the war.
Now, if you are talking about ALL of the tribes, or at least a majority, that's a good question. I'm in no way one of those people on this board that think that American Manifest Destiny shall simply sweep aside every obstacle in its path, nor that American-Native relations necessarily had to take the path that it did. But I do think that the best that could reasonably expected is that American government offering a territory for all Native allies to relocate to. This, obviously, had proponents in OTL and was tried (adevels evidenced by the Indian Territory west of the Mississippi), so its not entirely unreasonable.
If we want some surviving Native governments, perhaps the best bet would be the lower peninsula of Michigan. Michigan settlement in OTL was actually delayed because some of the first English/American surveyors incorrectly declared that much of the peninsula was swamp land and unfit for farming. Perhaps we could see this mistake being made a bit earlier and the Americans offering to allow the remaining East Coast tribes to settle there (this is going to spark some interesting problems of its own. Parts of the region were Anishinabe, and the Iroquois had been at war with them for years. So, yeah, that's gonna be grand). If the Indian Territory also comprises OTL Indiana as well, you could actually this Territory become pretty prosperous and, over time, develop some solid population density.
Of course, if its prosperous its eventually going to draw the attention of white settlers again. If, in the ATL, a myth develops of the importance of America's Native Allies in the fight for independence, this may be able to be overcome - though its going to be tense. If not - in a potential alt-1812 or second Britano-American War, possibly the Territory switches sides and seeks British protection. In the later case, it pays for the Brits to establish a protectorate in order to have a useful ally against further American aggression.
Just shooting from the hip here, but those are my thoughts.
Detroit was founded in 1701 and by the British period it was the third largest settlement in the Province of Québec. It just did not have many anglophone settlers until the next century. Also, control of Michigan is important strategically for the USA, both for protecting trade on the Great Lakes and guarding the border with British Canada. It would not seem to make sense for them to use this land as a big Native reserve.
Last edited:
There might be even nationalist-liberal Maltese uprisings in the 19th Century against the order( Iam not common with the Maltese mentality towards the knight-order rule). Another possibility is that Britain might want to annex Malta to control the Mediterranian ?
Bohemond d'Hauteville
Banned
If the Muslims never conquered Iberia, what would have happened to the Visigoths?
Koprulu Mustafa Pasha
Gone Fishin'
Probably survived as a Christian State but divided or unstable. I guess by the 11th century it could recover, IF it remained unconquered by either the Franks or the Moors.
I think that would be very greater chances to become a 'failed state' (in the modern sense) with bigger chances that the monarchical power would become in nominal and/or the war prey from the great aristocrat families and near continues the dynastic and aristocrats infighting and the crescent oppression pushing to the peasants to rebel and/or to abandon their farms and flee to the mountains. Besides of course of the periodics pirate raids from the Moors tribes (that probably would remain disunited and fighting with each other) around the Strait region.
Given that in less that some king would be successful in reverse some of the above mentioned trends the Visigoth kingdom in case to manage to conserve its unity, probably would be becoming in vassal of the Franks Kingdom.
Is that the only thing ever used to refer to the region? I could never find anything other than that but it's not a very appealing name.
You know what? Lets make it weirder. He dressed exactly like Vivec from Morrowind and tattooed half of his body with dark ink to simbolice the zoroastrian dualism. Bonus if he proclaims himself to be an avatar from the zoroastrian god.What if Xerxes, King of Kings of Persia is really a bald man who wears a lot of golden bling while being almost naked all the time? Just like what he is depicted in 300?
No this is not ASB, there is no magic, no significant alternations to Persian cultures and soldiers, and definitely no other 300 elements getting into. It was just Xerxes' personal Fashion Statement, and the Achaemenid Aristocrats and Military under him just basically said a collective "Ehhh?" shook their heads, but let their King of Kings having his own bold Fashion Statement.
And yes, ITTL, we knew this because King Xerxes in all accounts about him (Persian, Greeks, etc) is always being noted as a scantily clad bald man with a lot of things, even and especially in relief and paintings, but he also oversaw the somewhat successful Military Campaigns as well as the Building projects his OTL self has also done.
Bonus points if some future Persian Kings adopt his fashion statement as well, not always being boring long bearded long haired guys.
So there will be two versions of "acceptable" Persian Noble style, one is standard like OTL, and the other wearing speedo and brings.
Add: This is not ASB, Kings and Emperors have gotten away with worse in Antiquity and Medieval Period, lets assume aside of the weird fashion, Xerxes stayed just as competent as his OTL self.
Dolan
Banned
Hmm maybe a timeline with POD being Persian Kings end up being either having bold fashion statement, or the worst fashion victim.
A question on late medieval/early 16th century laws on matrimony (forgive me as this is a bit cryptic, but I don't want to give anything away if this is doable):
Female 1 marries Male 1 and have daugther 1.
Then Male 1 dies and Female 1 marries Male 2. They have Daughter 2.
Daugther 2 then marries Male 3. They have Son 1.
Can Daughter 1 and Son 1 legally marry without papal dispensation? Would it be frowned upon for the times? Northern Europe in the 1520s to be specific?
Summoning @FalconHonour @Gwrtheyrn Annwn @Kellan Sullivan @BlueFlowwer, @Zulfurium and anyone else knowledgable of such matters ^^
Female 1 marries Male 1 and have daugther 1.
Then Male 1 dies and Female 1 marries Male 2. They have Daughter 2.
Daugther 2 then marries Male 3. They have Son 1.
Can Daughter 1 and Son 1 legally marry without papal dispensation? Would it be frowned upon for the times? Northern Europe in the 1520s to be specific?
Summoning @FalconHonour @Gwrtheyrn Annwn @Kellan Sullivan @BlueFlowwer, @Zulfurium and anyone else knowledgable of such matters ^^
Last edited:
Hello, I am somewhat new on this site and I search a timeline where the legacy of Leonardo Di Vinci is more exploit either by Florence (doubtful) or by François Ier of France. I mean the man has invented, reinvented or upgraded things like steampowered canons, tanks, bikes and some machine tools, etc. Shouldn't France had been the first to produce a steam engine and all that come with it in the 16th century? I don't understand, Leonard lived the last 3 years of his life with the king!
Papal dispensation will be required (as daughter 1 is half-aunt of son 1) and I think you have either make some mistake or daughter 1 is likely too old for marrying son 1