Miscellaneous <1900 (Alternate) History Thread

A few random AHCs I came up with:

Have there be a Tibetan conquest dynasty over China.

With a POD after the rise of Islam, ideally with the latest POD possible, keep Indonesia and Malaysia majority Hindu-Buddhist.

Give a Latin American Country a significant pacific islander immigrant population.

Was there any chance for a Yuan restoration at any given point after the establishment of the Ming?
 
Last edited:
I was thinking recently, was there anything that Akechi Mitsuhide could/should have done before or after betraying Oda Nobunaga that would have allowed him to establish a long-lasting government?
 
What happens to the English throne if Henry VIII is infertile and both Mary and Margaret fail to produce offspring that survive to adulthood. If the line of Henry VII becomes extinct in 1547, who succeeds Henry VIII? Are there any Yorkist claimants lying around? A renewed War of the Roses? Or perhaps some foreign monarchs claim on flimsy contexts and we get a War of the English Succession?
 
Here are a few interesting alternate history possibilities pre 1900

: The Hapsburg dynasty manages to marry into the throne of England and maintain its control over England.

-France and Italy instead of invading North Africa, instead make the states of the Maghreb and Libya client states in a soft power approach.

How possible are these events?
 
Could something like the Steam Tank from Warhammer Fantasy have actually worked in alternate history, or is this a dumb idea that only works in fiction? The fact that it wasn't done implies this is a dumb idea, but I could see someone in the Industrial Revolution era trying it?
 
-France and Italy instead of invading North Africa, instead make the states of the Maghreb and Libya client states in a soft power approach.
I can see it happening with France if they were to continuously decide on this course of action (but not that likely they don't decide on invading the region at some point, at best they keep it as a protectorate) but for Italy it won't happen anytime soon, they couldn't even manage to hold more than the coast in Libya while sending in the army. Plus for Italy it would be post-1900.
 
I can see it happening with France if they were to continuously decide on this course of action (but not that likely they don't decide on invading the region at some point, at best they keep it as a protectorate) but for Italy it won't happen anytime soon, they couldn't even manage to hold more than the coast in Libya while sending in the army. Plus for Italy it would be post-1900.
Good point. Would this make it more easier for a hypothetical union between Morocco, Algeria, and Tunisia to arise?
 
Ok, so earlier this week I had encountered something on the internet which made me think back of an AHC thread I had once read on this very forum about whether it would be possible to have a Greek city state which accepted women as citizens who could participate and vote.

So, at the start of this week I had went down some internet rabbit hole and encountered this here: Diffusion of Gender Norms: Evidence from Stalin's Ethnic Deportations
The paper was behind a paywall so I could only read the abstract; however, that did mention that:
We combine historical and contemporary data to document that present-day gender equality in labor force participation, business leadership, and fertility as well as pro-gender-equality attitudes are higher among local native population of deportation destinations with a larger presence of Protestant compared to Muslim deportees.

Coincidentally, Stalin's deportations had made me think about antiquity. You see, somebody on this very forum had once compared Achaemenid Bactria with Siberia under Stalin, because the Great Kings deported rebellious Greeks there in the same way Stalin deported distrusted ethnicities to Siberia.
Also, as far as I am aware Ancient Egypt came closer to women being the equals of men than possibly any other large, pre-industrial, urbanised civilisation.

So, I wondered whether that would be a way to achieve the Alternate History Challenge. Have some Shahanshah decide to deport not only rebellious Greeks but also rebellious Egyptians to Bactria.
In at least one location the two populations end up mixing, then Achaemenid authority in Bactria collapses thanks to civil war and they find themselves de facto independent and set up their own governments.
At least one new polity combines the Greek polis form of government with the Egyptian attitude that women are perfectly capable of becoming judges and controlling property even when married. The problem with military service being seen as part of citizen-duties is solved by equating the dangers women face in childbirth with the dangers men face in fighting in war.

Later they end up in conflict up in conflict with surrounding polis with less Egyptian influence; however, they win those conflicts by out-breeding their enemies. You see, the Egyptian influenced Polis did not commit systematic female infanticide and thus had greater population growth.

However, there still are some problems:
  • I am actually not fully sure that even massive amounts of Ancient Egyptian influence in the form of most of a city states population being descended from Ancient Egyptians would suffice to create a Greek-style Polis with women's suffrage.
  • It could be that a hybrid Egyptian-Greek culture would fail to meet @PolishMagnet 's definition of 'Greek city state'.
 
What if the American Civil War was started by the secession of anti-slavery states? Perhaps started off by Bleeding Kansas? Who would be on which side? How would things split up with the free states forming their own country? What would they call themselves?

I'm thinking there needs to be some kind of event that gives the northern states the impression that the federal government is (overly) protecting and/or expanding slavery, basically the inverse of how the South felt prior to seceding.
 
What if the American Civil War was started by the secession of anti-slavery states? Perhaps started off by Bleeding Kansas? Who would be on which side? How would things split up with the free states forming their own country? What would they call themselves?

I'm thinking there needs to be some kind of event that gives the northern states the impression that the federal government is (overly) protecting and/or expanding slavery, basically the inverse of how the South felt prior to seceding.
I mean, opposition to the American Mexican War could create a powerful New England political party opposed to what they see as any attempt to expand slavery and John Brown’s raid and execution could set off secession in New England. Good idea though.
 
I mean, opposition to the American Mexican War could create a powerful New England political party opposed to what they see as any attempt to expand slavery and John Brown’s raid and execution could set off secession in New England. Good idea though.
Well I know there's that TL where New England secedes without fanfare earlier in the 1800s, but I'm looking for something a bit different here. I'm wondering if secession in ~1861 would pick up any other states (New York?) and also how such an ACW would pan out if things actually came to violence.

EDIT: Perhaps some states are seceding because the federal government wants them to attack their neighbors, rather than a directly slave-related reason. Basically like the OTL border states.
 
Last edited:
Well I know there's that TL where New England secedes without fanfare earlier in the 1800s, but I'm looking for something a bit different here. I'm wondering if secession in ~1861 would pick up any other states (New York?) and also how such an ACW would pan out if things actually came to violence.
You have to find a way to MASSIVELY piss off that state enough that it considers seceding against the entire US.
 
What if the American Civil War was started by the secession of anti-slavery states? Perhaps started off by Bleeding Kansas? Who would be on which side? How would things split up with the free states forming their own country? What would they call themselves?

I'm thinking there needs to be some kind of event that gives the northern states the impression that the federal government is (overly) protecting and/or expanding slavery, basically the inverse of how the South felt prior to seceding.
Maybe the United States starts (and loses) a foreign war?

Let's say for example that the government dominated by southerners tries to take Cuba by force. Due to the poor preparation of military personnel (there is no standing army, there are hardly any volunteers, the navy is very small) they lose so hard that politicians end up having to sign white peace. (Or paying compensation to Spain)

The North accuses the South of dragging them into a stupid war just to get more slaves, the South accuses the North of "stabbing us in the back" for their lack of enthusiasm in supporting the conflict.

Things escalate from there until the North decides they no longer want anything to do with a cabal of stupid, warmongering slavers.

So it is the North that separates and "the United States" is reduced to the South (the South tries to prevent it, but they lose).
 
I understand the rest, but why would the South want to prevent the North from seceding?
Because of the whole ideology of "the Union is one and indivisible, secession is not legal, you can't just leave because you don't like the government, etc, etc."

Remember that one of the main arguments in the OTL American Civil War was that secession was illegal and that the States could not simply leave the Union.

Later was decided to emphasize the issue of slavery -I mean in the North, the South made clear from the beginning that, for them, it was because they want to keep the slavery-
 
Because of the whole ideology of "the Union is one and indivisible, secession is not legal, you can't just leave because you don't like the government, etc, etc."

Remember that one of the main arguments in the OTL American Civil War was that secession was illegal and that the States could not simply leave the Union.

Later was decided to emphasize the issue of slavery -I mean in the North, the South made clear from the beginning that, for them, it was because they want to keep the slavery-
But why would the Slave states complain about this? What would they gain?
Plus it's not like they really have a chance to win, so why would they try to keep the Union together by force?
 
But why would the Slave states complain about this? What would they gain?
Plus it's not like they really have a chance to win, so why would they try to keep the Union together by force?
They basically believed that the North is betraying them by, first, refusing to support them in "this very necessary war"; then for being so critical of slavery, and finally for separating... So you think the (Now Slave-based) Union would just let them leave?
 
Top