Miscellaneous <1900 (Alternate) History Thread
- Thread starter RMcD94
- Start date
While it's probably a not-so-good idea, would it be plausible for any to equip at least some 17th century pike regiments with handguns as sidearms? They would not carry much in the way of ammunition or powder and the handgun would be an emergency weapon or used as a one-time boost in firepower from the unit. This could begin as an armament issued to the swordsmen who formed a part of a tercio and other pike and shot type units (they sometimes had javelins OTL), although the swordsmen seem to have vanished by the time decent handguns were invented. Eventually this would evolve to the entire units carrying pistols in addition to their pike, firing them at an approaching enemy (perhaps right as the musketeers in the unit fired).
Handguns and pistols in this period were expensive but it seems feasible at least a few favored/elite units might be equipped, no? I apologize if I made a glaringly obvious error to someone who knows more than I do on this subject and equipping pikemen with handguns was common in the 17th century.
Handguns and pistols in this period were expensive but it seems feasible at least a few favored/elite units might be equipped, no? I apologize if I made a glaringly obvious error to someone who knows more than I do on this subject and equipping pikemen with handguns was common in the 17th century.
So I have been reading a bit of material for the TL that I am making and I came about a very curious incident.
So in 1836 the Russel incident happened between Great Britain and New Granada (what would eventually become Colombia and Panama) this happened because a British consul, mister John Russell, killed a Panamanian resident and was going to be sent to a trial by a local judge who also briefly took his house as property of the New Granadian state, this caused a big international scandal which nearly ended in war, with things even going as far as the Jamaican Naval Squad blockading the city of Cartagena, the incident ended when a general for the New Granada Jose Hilario Lopez bribed the captain of the ship to back off and then the president negotiated terms with Great Britain.
But What if things had gone poorly and war had started? Would the US join or would it leave the conflict be?
So in 1836 the Russel incident happened between Great Britain and New Granada (what would eventually become Colombia and Panama) this happened because a British consul, mister John Russell, killed a Panamanian resident and was going to be sent to a trial by a local judge who also briefly took his house as property of the New Granadian state, this caused a big international scandal which nearly ended in war, with things even going as far as the Jamaican Naval Squad blockading the city of Cartagena, the incident ended when a general for the New Granada Jose Hilario Lopez bribed the captain of the ship to back off and then the president negotiated terms with Great Britain.
But What if things had gone poorly and war had started? Would the US join or would it leave the conflict be?
What if Robbespiere by chance fled right before his execution and went to the United States ? How would he be received by the press and popular opinion ?
Does anyone here know about the story of the 14th century Malian Mansa Muhammad ibn Gao leading an expedition into the Atlantic Ocean (and apparently never returning to Africa)? I think it would make a cool AH scenario if they reached the Americas and established a settlement there (probably somewhere in the Caribbean). Unfortunately, I suspect it would still turn out badly for the Native American peoples, as they could still receive Old World diseases even if they and the Malian colonists somehow avoided conflict.
Oh yes, I've heard of that. I think there's a few old timelines on here with that premise. There's even an EU4 achievement named after Abu Bakr II (whether or not that was the Mansa's real name). I think it would be a very interesting premise for a timeline.
I think that it would actually be better for Native American people if they received Old World diseases almost 200 years early, because it would give them more time to recover from the epidemics and get cows, horses, pigs, sheep, etc. before any European attacks. TLs with prolonged Viking settlement tend to have the Native Americans do at least marginally better for this reason. Of course, that's assuming there wouldn't be Malian attacks with the same ferocity as the European ones in OTL; I'm not sure whether that's a reasonable assumption.
I think that it would actually be better for Native American people if they received Old World diseases almost 200 years early, because it would give them more time to recover from the epidemics and get cows, horses, pigs, sheep, etc. before any European attacks. TLs with prolonged Viking settlement tend to have the Native Americans do at least marginally better for this reason. Of course, that's assuming there wouldn't be Malian attacks with the same ferocity as the European ones in OTL; I'm not sure whether that's a reasonable assumption.
Even if they weren't to develop a "Manifest Destiny" sort of ideology, I think getting into conflict with Native nations would be inevitable for the Malian colonists. The moment they allied with any Native communities, they would likely get dragged into conflicts with those communities' enemies. We all know the pre-Columbian New World's geopolitical scene could be every bit as messy as anywhere else in the world at that time.
That said, the 13th-century Malian technological edge over any Native armies would be smaller than that between the Natives and the Spanish in the 16th century, chiefly due to the 13th-century Malians not having any gunpowder AFAIK. What they would have buffing them up is iron weapons and horses, the latter only really being useful on smooth open terrain rather than the jungles of Central and South America. Of course, the Natives could then acquire ironworking knowledge and horses through trade with the Malians in time.
I'm mulling over what a surviving democratic republic in the New Netherlands might be like, and I'm wondering if anyone could offer any input as to what the head of state would be called. Would they use "Stadtholder", or would there be something more likely?
Any in put that anyone would care to offer would be appreciated.
Any in put that anyone would care to offer would be appreciated.
So. What if the British kept the Philippines and supported Diego Silang's rebellion against the Spaniards?
Grey Wolf
Donor
Whilst later, the Batavian Republic might provide an answer
Uitvoerend Bewind - Wikipedia
The head of state is basically called "The President of the Executive Council" which matches how the Spanish Prime Minister today, for example, is basically called "President of the Council"
Cool. Thanks.Whilst later, the Batavian Republic might provide an answer
Uitvoerend Bewind - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
The head of state is basically called "The President of the Executive Council" which matches how the Spanish Prime Minister today, for example, is basically called "President of the Council"
*President of the Government.Whilst later, the Batavian Republic might provide an answer
Uitvoerend Bewind - Wikipedia
The head of state is basically called "The President of the Executive Council" which matches how the Spanish Prime Minister today, for example, is basically called "President of the Council"
"President of the Council of Ministers" is also used, but it is less common. The usual version in Spanish is "Presidente del Gobierno" (President of the Government).
I was thinking about a union of Tyrol, Aquilea, Verona, Lombardia with Switzerland.
Grey Wolf
Donor
Who would be the most dominant? Would the Swiss ethic survive, or would it be a greater Milan?
Relic weapons are a common trope in video games, books, and films. In history, were Roman weapons that survived into the early medieval era considered more powerful or even relic weapons? Or was metallurgy not better in the Roman era compared to the early Medieval?
I think it depends. Certainly old weapons remained useful, passed on within families. And the weapons may have gained a degree of renown over the years, this is a lucky or powerful sword, this blade was wielded by an emperor, that kind of thing. As far as actual physical qualities? I dont think late antiquity era weapons were any better or worse than on average, and honestly fighting styles developed and changed so actually its more probably that after a century or so a weapon would be worse than a new one.
Thank you for your response. So Roman weapons being better than early Medieval ones is probably not true, and any "relic" weapons were due to renown rather than better metallurgy or power.
Probably, though as I say any inferiority is due more to advancements and changes to how battles were fought. While there was a dip in knowledge in some places and metal quality dropped in certain regions the actual quality of the metal was not dissimilar until the latter medieval period when knowledge surpassed Roman standards.