Miscellaneous <1900 (Alternate) History Thread

Would it be plausible for revolutionary regimes in France and Spain in the nineteenth century to trade Upper Cerdanya for Val d'Aran?
 
En mi opinión, tu publicación tiene suficiente contenido y contexto para justificar un hilo, y probablemente obtendrás más resultados allí. Yo en tu lugar abriría un hilo sobre esto.
--
En cualquier caso, ¿cómo era la situación demográfica religiosa en los Estados cruzados? ¿Cuáles fueron sus políticas de conversión? Me pregunto cómo sería el "Reino de Jerusalén" si sobreviviera, digamos, hasta el siglo XVII.
Thanks for the advice, but I have a problem which is that... I... I have absolutely no idea how to do them.
I think I would do well to investigate it, in any case, thank you very much.

And so as not to break any rules with this comment, and if I'm breaking any rule in this thread, I'm going to ask a question to fill out, if it doesn't bother someone here of course:
Would it be possible that, with having a unified Germany in 1848, and a First World War in 1898, would it be possible to visualize how SO different this timeline would be than ours?
 
Last edited:
Would it be plausible for revolutionary regimes in France and Spain in the nineteenth century to trade Upper Cerdanya for Val d'Aran?
It is unlikely. However revolutionary they may be, they would still appreciate the advantages of a strategically defensible border. One of the main reasons why Trans-Pyrenean Navarra was ceded to France was precisely to be able to use the mountains as a defense.
 
It is unlikely. However revolutionary they may be, they would still appreciate the advantages of a strategically defensible border. One of the main reasons why Trans-Pyrenean Navarra was ceded to France was precisely to be able to use the mountains as a defense.
This is not Navarre, but I see your point.
 
This is not Navarre, but I see your point.
It is a fairly similar problem: small enclaves separated from the rest of the country by bodies of mountains or water that mean that, in the event of war, a defense of the place will be hindered against an attacker who can exploit this body as a fortress in his favor. .
 
It is a fairly similar problem: small enclaves separated from the rest of the country by bodies of mountains or water that mean that, in the event of war, a defense of the place will be hindered against an attacker who can exploit this body as a fortress in his favor. .
So no French annexation of Llivia then either?
 
So small potential PoD - - Coenwulf was King of Mercia until his death in 821; East Anglos fell from Mercian control during his reign, and in the chaotic aftermath of his death, Kent was lost as well, to Wessex. Now Coenwulf reportedly had a son, Cynehelm, who is the basis Saint Kenelm; details are fuzzy, but apparently this heir to be was killed in some political intrigue.

So supposing Kenelm had lived? Would Mercian power in the region have declined during this time as it did LTL?
 
One thing I had been thinking about.
In the thread 'WI: Five Civilized Tribes Accept US Citizenship/National Dissolution?', somebody had wondered whether it would have been possible for those Indian tribes to end up admitted into the US as states; the reply was that that was impossible, as their their treaty land was on the territory of states that had already been declared and those states would not have relinquished that.

However, it did made me wonder. Would there possibly be an earlier PoD which would allow Indian tribes to join the US as states.
Maybe that would require a PoD before independence. First the British do something which greatly angers multiple Indian tribes; then the French decide against supporting the rebelling Thirteen Colonies, because of their huge debt; creating a situation where things go bad enough that the early US is willing to offer beforementioned Indian tribes statehood, they accept reasoning that statehood would safeguard them from having their land stolen by neighbouring US states.

Or would such a scenario not work?

I wonder what the results of such a scenario would be... I suspect having Indians in congress would impact race relations and the Indian Wars.
 
Could the peoples of the Kamchatka peninsula have ever formed societies based around ocean-bound raiding of Japan, Korea, and China; the same way that the Scandinavians did in Europe?
 
Could the peoples of the Kamchatka peninsula have ever formed societies based around ocean-bound raiding of Japan, Korea, and China; the same way that the Scandinavians did in Europe?
They were kind of at a "cul-de-sac" so to speak culturally and economically. The Itelmen culture was fairly static for millennia and only changed because of Ainu and then Russian expansion. Other Kamchatka cultures were always appearing and being displaced, like at one point a group related to the Inuit lived in northern Kamchatka, and then were driven out by the ancestors of the Koryaks and Chukchi. The seas are fairly harsh and the Kurils fairly poor or even barely inhabited for a lot of history which impeded southerly contact. IIRC most contact with East Asia was via Tungusic peoples far to the southwest until the 1st millennium AD.

I guess if you had an Okhotsk culture (i.e. kinsmen of the Nivkh) wank, then you might have the Kuril branch of the Okhotsk culture be more successful and connect Kamchatka and East Asia. The biggest problem is that Japan didn't expand north until the 7th-9th centuries and their control was fairly weak and the area rather underdeveloped. Likewise, the northeastern quadrant of modern North Korea was a barbaric frontier to the kingdoms of Korea until a few centuries ago. You might have a POD from the Kamchatka angle, where they might develop subarctic agriculture, or maybe even import agriculture from the Jurchen (Kamchatka seems to have many sheltered valleys and volcanic soil which means it's not much worse than parts of Norway for farming), but I find that a lot more difficult even if it would fulfill the POD.

I should note that there were however actual Viking equivalents in East Asia among the people of Outer Manchuria and northern Korea among the Tungusic peoples. For instance, there were attacks on Tsushima and Kyushu in Japan during the 11th century by Tungusic-speaking pirates (possibly Jurchens) which helped colour Japanese views toward foreign invaders. Balhae and its predecessor tribes were powerful maritime raiders who attacked China, Japan, and Korea. As a kingdom Balhae survived until the 10th century and as an ethnic group the people of Balhae maintained their identity until the Red Turban Rebellion and the fall of the Mongol Empire around 400 years later. There are also suggestions that Tungusic-speakers settled in parts of northern Japan, or otherwise constituted parts of the group designated Emishi by the Japanese.
 
For a TL-191 variant timeline that I'm coming up with, the Prussians lose the Austro-Prussian War, resulting in the formation of the United League of Mitteleuropa which eventually becomes a world power similar to OTL's USA. An idea I'm experimenting with for that timeline is that Britain becomes TTL's Cuba to this world's USSR counterpart, which is based in East Asia. But the thing is for that to happen, the British Empire would have to break up into multiple pieces to the point that it becomes a client state of an outside power (most likely Mitteleuropa). Could a more explosive Franco-German War (which sucks in the British as London feels that the Germans have gotten too big for their britches) that results in the Mitteleuropans winning against the French and Brits do the trick? Keep in mind that the PoD still needs to be no earlier than 1862, because that's the PoD for canon TL-191 as well.
 
For a TL-191 variant timeline that I'm coming up with, the Prussians lose the Austro-Prussian War, resulting in the formation of the United League of Mitteleuropa which eventually becomes a world power similar to OTL's USA. An idea I'm experimenting with for that timeline is that Britain becomes TTL's Cuba to this world's USSR counterpart, which is based in East Asia. But the thing is for that to happen, the British Empire would have to break up into multiple pieces to the point that it becomes a client state of an outside power (most likely Mitteleuropa). Could a more explosive Franco-German War (which sucks in the British as London feels that the Germans have gotten too big for their britches) that results in the Mitteleuropans winning against the French and Brits do the trick? Keep in mind that the PoD still needs to be no earlier than 1862, because that's the PoD for canon TL-191 as well.
What if a Hindu nationalist revolution becomes communist and since it is an Anglo-Saxon based revolution it expands to Great Britain weakened by having to squander its resources first in silly wars against Mitteleuropa and then trying to subjugate the People's Republic of Bharat again? . Of course, with Mitteleuropa in front of them and the United States lurking in the sea, they have no choice but to be Bharat's clients...
 
What if a Hindu nationalist revolution becomes communist and since it is an Anglo-Saxon based revolution it expands to Great Britain weakened by having to squander its resources first in silly wars against Mitteleuropa and then trying to subjugate the People's Republic of Bharat again? . Of course, with Mitteleuropa in front of them and the United States lurking in the sea, they have no choice but to be Bharat's clients...
Hmm... interesting, but a bit cliche. I was thinking more along the lines of a more explosive Franco-Prussian War, which becomes known as the War of the Rhine ITTL. Obviously, I would still have the Mitteleuropans win this war. The Third French Empire survives as Napoleon III isn't captured unlike OTL, but the British Empire eventually suffers colonial revolts backed by opportunistic foreign powers (namely the Russians and Americans, although the United States does it more out of spite as payback for Britain's contribution towards the Confederate victory ITTL) and falls to pieces, while the United Kingdom (that is to say, the British Isles proper) becomes the Second British Commonwealth, which becomes a Mitteleuropan client state (akin to OTL Cuba) from 1902 - 1959, only becoming a vanguardist state in 1959 or 1960. FYI, during that time period, Cuba was essentially an American client state OTL. Of course, the British monarchy ITTL would continue in Canada, Australia and New Zealand.

As for communism, it would be known as vanguardism ITTL, and the Federation of Kyodan Vanguardist Mandates would end up becoming the first vanguardist state quite similar to OTL's USSR (but not a copy-paste version), only this time it encompasses East Asia (Russia never turns vanguardist in TTL's First Great War). And no, I don't intend to have the British Raj turn communist here, although they would eventually become independent nonetheless, albeit way earlier than IOTL. I have a more... interesting fate in mind for India, probably similar to Imperial Japan or something like that.
 
Last edited:
I say short term mostly so this thread isn't someone reminding me the CSA can't win. Lincoln considered Kentucky in particular vital to the union as a whole. So what if both states choose to secede? How is the early to mid-war impacted?

The Confederates wouldn't have to fight that much in Missouri and Kentucky and can devote resources elsewhere.
 
 
1. What if Russia annexed the Danubian provinces of Moldavia and Wallachia in the Adrianople Treaty of 1829 that ended the Russo-Turkish War of 1828-29? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Adrianople_(1829)?

The Russians are motivated to do an annexation instead of a de facto occupation under Ottoman nominal sovereignty as a reward for their trouble in the late war , to install a trusted government for the area in place of local princely and factional intrigue, to have more robust forward fortifications and cantonments available in the event of another future war with the Turks, and above all, to keep every other external power out of the business of the Danubian provinces.

Nicholas I's Russia, having taken Erzerum in northeast Anatolia, and occupied Adrianople well south of the Danube and Balkan mountains, and defeated the Ottoman armies between there and Constantinople is well-positioned to enforce this demand bilaterally on the Ottoman Turks.

Is Russia likely to get away with this on the international scene, or will it stir a hostile reaction like what emerged prior to the Crimean War or after the revelation of the Treaty of San Stefano? What is the stance of each other interested great power?

I imagine Metternich's Austria does not like this happening, but also does not like the idea of war with Russia or paying for such a war. But would this drive the Austrians to make an ultimatum against Russia to rescind their annexation?

I imagine the Prussians would be passive, uninterested in offending Russia.

Bourbon France could easily protest and encourage Ottoman resistance. Britain likely would protest and encourage Ottoman resistance, although this would be a quick turnabout from their anti-Turkish stand over Greece.

Is it a case of mere protest a la the 1870s? If so, can Nicholas ignore it? Or does he do a backtrack?

Or do we have an early Crimean War, 1830 edition? If so, how does that intertwine with the French, Belgian, and Polish unrest and revolutions of that year? And how does that war itself go? And what approach does Muhammad Ali take during it?

2. What if Russian Tsar Alexander I gave unequivocal backing to the Wallachian and Greek rebels in his last years from 1821-1825 instead of often being against them, and leaving it to Nicholas I to later change his mind along with the rest of Europe? Does Ottoman rule get rolled back any earlier in these lands? Does a consensus not form in the west for Greek independence with the Russians being so supportive from beginning to end?
What's the reaction of Metternichian Austria to a move like this in particular?

Metternich's ideal state is no change, or minimal change in borders and regimes and minimal instability, ie, the Russians don't make a move (if had his preferences, the Concert of Europe indeed would have hung the Greeks, Serbs and Romanians out to dry entirely in OTL).

But Metternich definitely is not getting that.

So with Russia going for a unilateral landgrab that extends Russia's border with and around Austria and seizes control of its Danube outlet, what does Metternich think is a worse future, Russia pockets this unilateral gain while Austria sits still, uncompensated, hoping southeast Europe calms? Or Austria gains Balkan compensation for itself (perhaps in Bosnia or Serbia), but this increases Ottoman decay and European disorder?
Consequences through ~1920?

For question 1, Russia might be able to get away with it because the Austrians would not intervene for the Ottomans (at most, the Austrians would substitute Russian rule for Austrian and Romanian rule in the Danubian Principalities as in the otl Crimean War) and Britain and France would be too pro-Greek or would be informed of their previous pro-Greek stance by their people to the extent of being unable to intervene against Russia. The most would be mere protest ala the 1870s followed by lack of action and retraction of the protests (except for Russia ceding the Danubian Principalities to Austria and Romania). Metternich and Austria would stay still and hope that things would calm down in the Balkans (Southeastern Europe) and the Ottoman Empire.

For question 2, Ottoman rule would be ended earlier in Greece (in circa 1822 instead of otl's 1832) and Wallachia (the Danubian Principalities) (in circa 1822 instead of otl's 1877) and Russian support for Greek and Wallachian/ Danubian/ Romanian revolutionaries from beginning to the end would mean that consensus in the west wouldn't be that supportive of Greek independence compared to the west's support of Greek independence in otl.

In the long run, the impact would be slightly worse Ottoman performance and an independent Romania for both the unbutterflied (due to Ottoman rule over Bulgaria) Crimean and the 1877 Russo-Turkish Wars, but both wars and the rest of global history would proceed as in otl.

Philip IV was known as a good but greedy ruler, who taxed and imposed state control over the Catholic Church. He also infamously expelled the Jews in 1306 and then burned the Knights Templar in 1307. In 1314, there was a scandal known as the Tours de Nestle but he died shortly after. His sons (and grandson) Louis X, John I, Philip V and Charles IV all died within 14 years of him. In 1337 his nephew Philip VI tried to revoke Aquitaine which led to the 100 Years' War. But Philip IV wasn't even expected to be King, he had an
 
Last edited:
WI: Tucumán was selected as Argentinian capital?
In relation to this scenario, here's the plan of the house where the Tucumán Congress was held:
GM3WGNTDGQYTGYRUMEYDCYTCGU.jpg

(Apologies if it's in Spanish, as this article was the source.)

In this case, how possible/plausible that this colonial-era could be modified/slightly enlarged to befit the country's federal legislature? I personally thought of its (OTL) Venezuelan counterpart:
Palacio-Federal-Legislativo-de-Venezuela.jpg
 
What if the Crusaders win at the Battle of Zlatitsa(1443)? How could the campaign continue to develop? Is there a chance for the Cruaders to reach and perhaps take Edirne? What kind of peace could they force on the Ottomans?
 
IIRC western European medieval chronology/history-making was often not accurate in terms of dates, so medieval people often said "This even happened X years ago" but exaggerated the timeframe? Or is this a mistaken belief?
 
Top