Miscellaneous <1900 (Alternate) History Thread

Thinking about the infamous three-fifths compromise in the original United States Constitution, something occurred to me - women across the US didn’t legally have the right to vote until the passing of the Nineteenth Amendment (though even then it was restricted on a state-by-state basis for a while), just like how Black people and other racial minorities didn’t officially get the right to vote until the Fifteenth Amendment (though obviously it took much longer for Black people to actually be able to vote what with Jim Crow and literacy tests and the grandfather clause and White-supremacist intimidation and whatnot). Before the Fifteenth Amendment, enslaved people were legally considered three-fifths of a person when counting population to determine seating in the House of Representatives, which was primarily because the South wanted to have as large of as an advantage as possible in the House and the North didn’t want the South using people that were legally considered property to get that advantage; the main Northern argument against slaves counting as people for House purposes was that they were legally property, noncitizens, and crucially, didn’t have voting rights. Since women didn’t have universally legally recognized voting rights until much later on in American history, similar to the slaves whose lack of said rights was a major factor in their being legally considered a fraction of a person, does anyone know how women, whether free or enslaved, were counted towards the population when determining seats, whether as full people, a fraction of a person, or not at all?
 
Thinking about the infamous three-fifths compromise in the original United States Constitution, something occurred to me - women across the US didn’t legally have the right to vote until the passing of the Nineteenth Amendment (though even then it was restricted on a state-by-state basis for a while), just like how Black people and other racial minorities didn’t officially get the right to vote until the Fifteenth Amendment (though obviously it took much longer for Black people to actually be able to vote what with Jim Crow and literacy tests and the grandfather clause and White-supremacist intimidation and whatnot). Before the Fifteenth Amendment, enslaved people were legally considered three-fifths of a person when counting population to determine seating in the House of Representatives, which was primarily because the South wanted to have as large of as an advantage as possible in the House and the North didn’t want the South using people that were legally considered property to get that advantage; the main Northern argument against slaves counting as people for House purposes was that they were legally property, noncitizens, and crucially, didn’t have voting rights. Since women didn’t have universally legally recognized voting rights until much later on in American history, similar to the slaves whose lack of said rights was a major factor in their being legally considered a fraction of a person, does anyone know how women, whether free or enslaved, were counted towards the population when determining seats, whether as full people, a fraction of a person, or not at all?
Women and children have always been counted as people, counting toward apportionment population on a 1:1 basis if free (and not untaxed Indians) and on a 3:5 basis if enslaved. It wasn't until the 15th Amendment that any discrimination based on voting eligibility itself was introduced, and even though that doesn't account for women's suffrage it's never been applied to any effect, AFAIK.
 
"You'll Be Back": Is there a possibility where in a post American Revolution POD, have at least 1 state leave and rejoin the British Empire, but not through British military might alone. The state(s) in question would need to willingly join, not because of force. The title is a Hamilton allusion, and the situation in timelines such as "Jefferson's Anti-Slavery Crisis" where states walk out of the Continental Congress due to the Declaration of Independence does not count since in that case, those states never joined the USA in the first place.
 
How to harden cotton armor? Is using tar to fortify the cotton fluff a viable method?
Even if that was the case, I don't think that would work vs. bullets or crossbow bolts?
It might repel melee attacks (even with steel weapons), but IIRC this is an allusion to the Aztec "cotton armor"?
The tar might work, but it feels like that would still be ineffective.
 
When did the Sami reach Scandinavia?
"We know for certain that the inland part of northernmost Sweden was inhabited some 10,000 years ago by people who may have been the ancestors of the Sami."
-the sami – an Indigenous People in Sweden - Samer.se

We aren't exactly 100% sure about the origin of the Sami.
We could also ask ourselves when the ancestors of the Sami end and when the 'Sami' begin.
 
Last edited:
"We know for certain that the inland part of northernmost Sweden was inhabited some 10,000 years ago by people who may have been the ancestors of the Sami."
-the sami – an Indigenous People in Sweden - Samer.se

We aren't exactly 100% sure about the origin of the Sami.
We could also ask ourselves when the ancestors of the Sami end and when the 'Sami' begin.
lol I should have said Uralic speakers XD Sami languages did not originate in Scandinavia. By 0 AD Finland was Sami speaking and Finns came there only later
 
lol I should have said Uralic speakers XD Sami languages did not originate in Scandinavia. By 0 AD Finland was Sami speaking and Finns came there only later
There seems to be a lot of theories.

"The Proto-Samic language is believed to have formed in the vicinity of the Gulf of Finland between 1000 BC to 700 AD, deriving from a common Proto-Sami-Finnic language (M. Korhonen 1981)".

And there are some theories about Finnic people raching Scandinavia from 3000 years ago.

In short, we aren't 100% sure.
 
What If Bonnie Prince Charlie had stopped at the Scottish border during his 1745 rebellion and consolidated his hold up north before trying for England?

Would the French have also invaded to support him given more prep time?
 
What were the cultural differences between Greek and Turkish peasants in Anatolia? How different was a day in the life of a turkish peasant vs a greek one?
 
Let's say that for whatever reason Britain and Egypt don't march South and take back Sudan after the Mahdist Uprising. What happens from there?
 
What if Theodore Roosevelt wasn't born?

Well, we may not see the expansion of the Spanish-American War into the Pacific (though it's entirely possible others would have lobbied for that). Also we would have been a different political figure becoming the first Progressive President - either because they were nominated as McKinley's VP - or possibly in 1904 (certianly no later than 1908). My personal, and perennial favorite, would be Robert M. LaFollette.

What's interesting, of course, is that a different figure in that position would have a different legislative record and policy focuses. Also, if we go with someone like LaFollette, there is a greater chance that the GOP comes out of the Progressive Era as THE Liberal Party (I love TR, but LaFollette was far superior at building up a loyal political faction within a party - something TR tried to do but wasn't as skilled at).
 
What If Bonnie Prince Charlie had stopped at the Scottish border during his 1745 rebellion and consolidated his hold up north before trying for England?

Would the French have also invaded to support him given more prep time?
Well the French weren't going to invade unless they could defeat, or just possibly evade, the Royal Navy. Landing a raiding force is one thing, landing an army in support of a claimant to the throne is another.
 
It is often the case that people on this forum have miscellaneous or frivolous questions that could be easily answered by the many experts on this forum but are difficult to find the answer to on Google Scholar/Books or Wikipedia because they don't often deal in alternatives.

There are other cases where people have miscellaneous or frivolous scenarios or challenges that they want to share about an idea they encountered that could perhaps provoke inspiration in other users but isn't deserving enough to be posted as a thread on its own.

These issues have been addressed in the Shared Worlds and ASB forums but haven't been dealt with here.

This thread is intended to be a resource for those with questions about a timeline they want to construct which are minor and undeserving of their own thread, and a place to share ideas that people don't have time, skill or knowledge to write themselves.
Could the Manx island kingdom and her people have persisted with a distinct language and identity ?
 
If the titles of Duke of Saxony and Margrave of Meissen never merged, what would the latter state be called? There is of course numerous PODs to keep the name "Saxony" fixed in northwestern Germany, or at the very least not migrate to the center-east corner. Would it remain known after its capital city (which may not stay capital over the years) or would it be just as plausible that another territory acquired by the Wettins like the March of Lusatia become the general name for the region despite Lusatia having meant one particular area of Wettin lands since the 10th century?

I've also seen this area referred to as Osterland in medieval times but that wasn't ever used as the name of a state OTL as it was more a collection of states.
Could the Manx island kingdom and her people have persisted with a distinct language and identity ?
Their identity persisted and their language only died out recently and has a linguistic revival, the hard part is keeping the island a separate kingdom.
 
Most of the Rus' Principalities pull a Novgorod in the face of the Mongols. Having accepted the Khan's suzerainty without much defiance, only a few cities are hit as hard as they've been in OTL and neither Vladimir nor Kiev are among them. The following centuries see all of the Principalities end up transitioning into crowned trade republics and enter a personal union with the Kingdom of Poland, which would later lead to the birth of the Polish-Rus' Commonwealth.
 
Most of the Rus' Principalities pull a Novgorod in the face of the Mongols. Having accepted the Khan's suzerainty without much defiance, only a few cities are hit as hard as they've been in OTL and neither Vladimir nor Kiev are among them. The following centuries see all of the Principalities end up transitioning into crowned trade republics and enter a personal union with the Kingdom of Poland, which would later lead to the birth of the Polish-Rus' Commonwealth.
What would you do with Orthodox-Catholic problems?
Or the military problems that Novgorod had? (lack of standing armies)
How can all the republics in a personal union with Poland since all are well, different republics?
 
What would you do with Orthodox-Catholic problems?
The Kingdom of Poland and the Grand Principality of Kiev would take turns in which member of the royal couple they would vote the enthronement of, meaning in theory there would always be either a catholic Polish king married to an orthodox Rus' grand princess or an orthodox Rus' grand prince married to a catholic Polish queen.
Or the military problems that Novgorod had? (lack of standing armies)
Novgorod would likely be the only part of the union coming into it with that kind of handicap.
How can all the republics in a personal union with Poland since all are well, different republics?
They would all still be under the nominal authority of the Grand Prince of Kiev, whose actual power would have increased substantially, compared to the lows it had reached on the eve of OTL's Mongol invasion of Russia.
 
Top