Miscellaneous <1900 (Alternate) History Thread

What if, after his election, Andrew Jackson, mad with grief and blaming JQA for Rachel’s death, shoots the still-incumbent Adams and kills him.

Would Calhoun finish JQA’s term and take Jackson’s? Would an emergency election be held? Could this kill the Democratic Party?
 
What if, after his election, Andrew Jackson, mad with grief and blaming JQA for Rachel’s death, shoots the still-incumbent Adams and kills him.

Would Calhoun finish JQA’s term and take Jackson’s? Would an emergency election be held? Could this kill the Democratic Party?
If Jackson did do that, which I kinda doubt he would but with Jackson who knows, then Adams' running-mate in the 1828 election, would become president. That would be Richard Rush, as Calhoun switched his allegiance from the Adams to Jackson camp in the 1828 election and only ran with Jackson. Without Jackson, I imagine something roughly similar to the Democratic Party would form, but without the central figure to the cult of personality that defined the Democratic Party for the first few decades of its existence, it would be difficult to predict differences in detail. It would probably depends on who rises in Jackson's stead.
 
I know this sounds ASB but I have to ask this here... for anyone who watched The Simpsons know about the Civil War reenactment episode. At the end of the reenactment the Professor shows up with a giant steampowered superspider with webs made of nylon.

My question is, how successful would any nation be in war if they used such Superspiders?
 
I know this sounds ASB but I have to ask this here... for anyone who watched The Simpsons know about the Civil War reenactment episode. At the end of the reenactment the Professor shows up with a giant steampowered superspider with webs made of nylon.

My question is, how successful would any nation be in war if they used such Superspiders?
ASB. Please put that in the ASB section.
 
In OTL, during the first 40 years of independence of a Latin American country, no president lasted more than 2 years in office and rarely finished his mandate due to death, coup d'état, etc.

If writing an alternative history where the majority manage to finish their positions as president (just as the United States did), would it be plausible or is it ASB?
 
In OTL, during the first 40 years of independence of a Latin American country, no president lasted more than 2 years in office and rarely finished his mandate due to death, coup d'état, etc.

If writing an alternative history where the majority manage to finish their positions as president (just as the United States did), would it be plausible or is it ASB?
Nothing ASB about that. Chile was more or less stable from 1831 to 1891 (barring a few revolts) and every president was elected democratically (by Latin American standards of the time, it was obviously dominated by the elite) and finished their term in office and passed power to their successor.
 
What if the cotton gin was never invented? Would this have resulted in a gradual dying off of slavery as often predicted, potentially forestalling or eliminating the Civil War?
 
Was there a French resistance to the Germans in the Franco-Prussian War? Did it do anything of note, or was it just irrelevant?
Was there any chance it could launch a successful guerilla war?
 
Map of North America, circa 1940

Blue - United States of America

Yellow - Confederate States of America

Red - Socialist Communes of Mexico

Pale blue - Republic of Quebec (American puppet state)



















North America 1942.png
 
Last edited:
Got two questions-
A) Did the lands associated with the earldom of Desmond (1329 creation) pass through the female line?

B) Does anyone know what French titles Thomas of Clarence and Humphrey of Gloucester got after the battle of Agincourt? Ik that John of Bedford got Anjou.
 
Got two questions-
A) Did the lands associated with the earldom of Desmond (1329 creation) pass through the female line?

B) Does anyone know what French titles Thomas of Clarence and Humphrey of Gloucester got after the battle of Agincourt? Ik that John of Bedford got Anjou.
Thomas was Comte d’Albemarle (Aumale) and John Duc d’Anjou and Comte du Maine but I can not find a French title for Humphrey (so he likely do not received any being married to a continental heiress)
 
The Patriots (Continental Army) attempted to attack parts of Canada in the American Revolution, to no success. What if those invasions were never carried out?
 
What is this? A version of the South Lower South that broke free early and took some lands westward, and the US and much of Canada merged...
Sounds like either like PSGBHurricane's Southern-less USA, or my timeline (Jefferson's Anti-Slavery Crisis)
Just something I'm fiddling with at the moment.

The Civil War goes very differently, with several minor PoDs, such as as John Brown not carrying out the Raid at Harper's Ferry (he was unable to carry this out but during the war he led an anti-Confederate resistance movement in the Deep South), as well as that most of Virginia remains Union following the vote on April 4th, though southern and eastern Virginia secede to form South Virginia (a Confederate State that is not recognized by the U.S.). West Virginia is still formed for a multitude of reasons but West Virginia and Virginia remain part of the Union while portions of southern Virginia form Confederate South Virginia.

As a result of most of his state staying Union, Robert E. Lee becomes the General of the (Union) Army of Northern Virginia. Thomas "Stonewall" Jackson is also a Union general though he does earn his nickname until 1863 repulsing a Confederate offensive towards Richmond.

Montgomery, Alabama remains the capital of the Confederacy with Jefferson Davis as the president.

The war drags on from 1861-1865 (it ends on November 24th, 1865 rather than May 13th, 1865. The extra six months sees the death toll be much higher. The War is roughly 850,000 dead, 500,000 Union compared 350,000 Confederate.

The Confederacy does survive as the Union grew weary of the war as it had become a attritional slog the last year of the war in which the Confederates fought to bleed the Union Army to the bone. Tennessee and Arkansas fell fully to Union forces in 1863 and 1864 respectively and chunks of most Southern states are taken but by November both sides want peace and send delegations to Europe to negotiate a peace, concluding in the Treaty of Brussels 1865. The Confederates were forced to take on the burden of the pre-war debt the C.S. States had held plus their new wartime debt, as well as accept that Arkansas, Tennessee and South Virginia would remain a part of the Union forever. South Virginia would be absorbed back into Virginia while Arkansas and Tennessee would undergo Reconstruction for 10 years a piece, with both re-admitted to the Union fully in 1875. Many pro-slave/pro-Confederate elements left these two States following the Treaty of Brussels and Reconstruction and were flooded in turn by Union supporters eager for business opportunities and available land, making these two states firmly Union.

So the Confederate States of America is diminished to:
-North Carolina
-South Carolina
-Georgia
-Florida
-Alabama
-Mississippi
-Louisiana
-Texas

The expansion into Mexico (Sonora, Chihuahua and Baja California) came as a result of the Confederate-Mexican war in the 1880s. This came about for a variety of reasons, namely for port and rail access to the West Coast, the weakness of Mexico at the time, and instability in the Confederacy. The Confederate president at the time believed a short victorious war would unite the Confederate people, unite them into a Confederate identity and help take the attention of several financial and social issues. It worked.

The United States expansion into Canada came about as a result of the Anglo-American War, circa 1890-1892 which saw Canada fall to the U.S. due to sheer numbers while Britain fought a brutal war at sea that simply couldn't quite relieve the pressure off Canada. The U.S. won the land, the British won by sea and in the end the British had to accept the new American acquisitions. Occupation was harsh to those who did not accept American authority, with executions and imprisonment common. Tens of thousands of Canadians left Canada and moved to Australia, Britain or South Africa. By the early 1930s Ca

Quebec was made a puppet ally.

So by 1940 there is a Great War on the horizon, with lots of small wars leading up to and building up for the conflict between the United States, Germany, Britain, and their allies/puppets (Central Powers) against the French, Russians, Italians, and Confederates and their various allies/puppets (Entente).

After the Anglo-American War, U.S.-British tensions were really tense but things cooled down by the 1920s and now both consider each other fair allies.
 
Something I've been thinking about for a while... in the "great divorce" in 1837, when the UK and the Kingdom of Hanover went their separate ways due to the different succession laws, would it have been possible, or near-completely ASB, for Hanover to have gotten a colony or 2 out of the "separation agreement"? (yes, I have ulterior motives for inquiring :winkytongue:)
*bump*

Does nobody like my "colony or colonies for Hanover" idea? Anybody? :p
 
Anyone have some good information on ancient river warfare? I'd assume it would have a heavy focus on China given the importance of rivers and amount of sources from that region. What sort of ships would be used and what would be their specifications in terms of crew and length?

Sources on ancient naval warfare in China and India (anything pre-600 AD or so) would be appreciated in general.
 
Anyone have some good information on ancient river warfare? I'd assume it would have a heavy focus on China given the importance of rivers and amount of sources from that region. What sort of ships would be used and what would be their specifications in terms of crew and length?

Sources on ancient naval warfare in China and India (anything pre-600 AD or so) would be appreciated in general.
in northern india and southern nepal, rivers were often filled with boats that rammed into each other to pieces. Or they used small skirmisher bowmen to set each other's boast alight. Mainly used in small conflicts and trade conflicts.

The only historic record in the Nepalese historic annals mention the Kirat Empire using small riverine boats to block river trade routes when they were at war with the northern indian statelets and vassals of the Gupta Empire during the ~450 AD. They do talk about small combat in the rivers though it is not elaborated.
 
Top