What is a common thing or trope that always seem to happen?

[CHKeeley]

For me, it’s that Norse settlers in Newfoundland/Vinland are always militant pagans with oddly modern attachment to a formalized pantheon and very resistant to either Christianization or indigenous spiritual influences over the course of centuries.

I totally get it - rule of cool. Why write a story about an isolated bubble of Norse culture if you can’t preserve their faith? But at the same time, many on the voyages OTL would be Christians and those that weren’t would certainly not be so militant in their faith. Or they might have a pantheon and practices that are more localized (an adventurer from eastern Iceland might emphasize different deities and spirits than someone from northern Norway) and conform less to what we project back as “the Norse Gods”. And the possibility of Scando-Beothuk or Scando-Mi’kmaq cultural exchange and religious intermixing is interesting. Seems like a lot of possibilities outside the common trope tbh.

 

[Aluma]

There’s no Strong UN (e.g globally set migration or trade policy) or true world government (that isn’t just an extension of one country’s will)

And if there is they're evil
There's never a truly philanthropic global organization, period, be it the UN or else
It always has ulterior motives like being controlled by the capital/communists/the Antichrist

 

[Beatriz]

Even then the same nations always survive the scramble, Liberia and Ethiopia or no nations survive the scramble.

There’s Sokoto, the Sotho, the Buganda (who could have converted to Islam due to Egyptian muslim missionaries), one of the Somali states (the Dervish state survived until WW1), Wadai or Darfur as a buffer in the same place as Siam between French and British Africa.

 

[Deleted member 163405]

And yet no one ever chooses any of these awesome states or even make something survive longer, so europe just curb stomps a continent.

 

[AntoniousTheBro]

I'd like to see that, if you can be rigorous about the dragons. It's too easy to end up writing 'the industrial revolution, with MAaaAaaagiiiic' otherwise.

There was this notion kicking around that Qing China didn't industrialize in time because the non-industrial methods they had were good enough until suddenly they weren't. Something similar might happen with--I dunno--elven weavers being good and industrious enough that early power looms couldn't compete. So you end up with a setting where the quality and quantity of goods is higher than the technology would suggest, mostly, but where industry has stagnated because the super-cottage industries choke out mechanization before it can get off the ground.

The resident 'burn down the setting' event being that one weird place where only the orcs or the humans can bear to live, split by the geography into small, centralized states scrambling for any sort of advantage, who end up sticking it out until they hit the inflection point where mechanized industry is genuinely better than super-cottage industry on every point that matters. At which point you get your pick of 'colonization with MAaaAaaagiiiic', 'industrial revolution with MAaaAaaagiiiic', etc etc.

The idea of you were mentioning is the high-equilibrium trap posited by Mark elvin who wrote a paper on the comparative differences of the textile industries of great Britain and China in an attempt to analyse why one natively industrialised compared to the other. I wrote a pretty lengthy comment once on it. In short it is basically as you described being a mixture of various developmental paths which allowed China to keep pace even as Europe leaped ahead but that paradigm can only last so long. Honestly I can buy the fact China otl very much had opportunities to address Europe's ascension and adjust to maintain their dominance sadly however that would require a very different cultural mindset then what China had.

 

[Sarthak]

For me, it’s that Norse settlers in Newfoundland/Vinland are always militant pagans with oddly modern attachment to a formalized pantheon and very resistant to either Christianization or indigenous spiritual influences over the course of centuries.

I totally get it - rule of cool. Why write a story about an isolated bubble of Norse culture if you can’t preserve their faith? But at the same time, many on the voyages OTL would be Christians and those that weren’t would certainly not be so militant in their faith. Or they might have a pantheon and practices that are more localized (an adventurer from eastern Iceland might emphasize different deities and spirits than someone from northern Norway) and conform less to what we project back as “the Norse Gods”. And the possibility of Scando-Beothuk or Scando-Mi’kmaq cultural exchange and religious intermixing is interesting. Seems like a lot of possibilities outside the common trope tbh.

While the formal pantheon is a schtick i don't like either, whilst the leaders of the expeditions were christians, the vast majority of their voyagers were pagan to start with, so it's not out of the stretch to say that if vinland was permanently settled then pagans could become the majority.

 

[Brady Kj]

I imagine if there were more AH writers who know African history, they'd do something more interesting with Africa.

 

[Not Henry G.]

Mexico always gets screwed

 

[Deleted member 163405]

I imagine if there were more AH writers who know African history, they'd do something more interesting with Africa.

This is my biggest sorrow towards alternate history in general. Eventually I hope with more talent I can shed more light on the continent.

 

[viper23]

speaking of the Tau, where are the other races?
there is the kroot and that's it. show me the other species

There's the Vespids, and the Nicassar. At least according to the wiki.

Oh, there was also the Interex. Shame what was done to it.

 

[The Uchronian]

Same thing with kings, they are either very good or terrible. Jake, the ok king doesn't exist. The king is never talented but not like his father and that's why he can't keep things up. The heir is either a brainless or a genius. The king, if he is good, is tolerant, hardworking, etc. His fault is that he cares too much.

Yeah, most of this. My only caveat in regards to the bold.

It doesn't have a pragmatic and merciless king, who is adored by the kingdom for being efficient. if he's good, he only does really good things, even if is stupid. If the crown prince is pragmatic it's the same thing. The second prince has to go to the throne because the crown prince doesn't apologize for every blade of grass he steps on.

Eh, this actually isn't as rare as some think, and, TBH, certainly is a trope that can work really well, if done well enough. The problem is, though, it sometimes doesn't work, and the king/queen-or president, or whatever-can even end up looking like a raging asshole who really only succeeds for the sake of the plot of the story. My overall point here is, I would just be careful with how I balanced the ruler's/administrator's/etc. potential for ruthlessness with their sense of pragmatism.

Disputes are simple and easy to resolve
Be them:
Different ethnicities
clans/families/tribes multigenerational rivalry can be easily resolved
Disturbances by vital geographic areas- (they will split even if it's bad for both of them)
Etc

Yeah, that happens, but not that rarely things go in the opposite direction(as in, disputes that never get resolved, or take forever to resolve, no matter how plausible it would be for these issues to be fixed at a certain point).

"Look, it's very easy to fix this. You just have to make a couple of concessions to them. Preferably very small ones, the kind that would only have value in the 21st century, and that are purely symbolic. Something like, I don't know, allowing them to use their stupid and barbaric dialect in their local schools. Who cares if you then force them to do all the red tape in your beautiful cultured language. They'll be most grateful for such a small concession." - the average SI.

Eh.....to be quite honest, allowing a previously disadvantaged group to use their local language in schools, etc. is something that would have had value in the 20th Century as well, and even in the 19th Century to some extent(yes, part of this does depend on the locale, but still.....).

Multi ethnic states are looked on with disdain in the third world as doomed to fail, while multi ethnic first world states develop a strong and cohesive national identity.

I get what you're saying......but on one hand, there is a good reason why at least some TLs tend to have minorities be able to integrate deeply into liberal "First World", as we would call them, societies(not just Western ones, either) with well-functioning rule of law, and protection against discrimination, etc.-that said, though, on the other hand, to be fair.....it is true that "3rd World" nations don't always have to be rife with ethnic and religious strife, and sometimes that does get overdone. (Granted, it's certainly true that societies with more stubbornly traditionalist tendencies are definitely liable to have more problems, including with ethnic conflict, than those that are more open to societal progress-I would assume even some of the more cynical AH.commers would concur with that) You can indeed have nations, that, although poorer, are still cosmopolitan, at least to a degree, and whose political elite have generally made efforts to keep the peace. India is a fairly good example of this, but there's also countries like Botswana and Mexico whose own situations aren't talked about as often.

which is also stupid. Show me a world of different ideas with their positives and negatives. Different religions and the problems involved

Yeah, that's a fair point, too.

in latin america (literally on the side) is full of examples of one group helping to suppress others. The Middle East and Asia are also full.

Yes, also true(certainly there are at least a few examples that most/everyone here knows about in particular).

Nations are either entirely positive or entirely negative. All socialist nations must be evil, or they are all wholesome nations where there are no issues and everything is amazing. All capitalist nations are bustling robust nations, or the iron boot that crushes the poor.

Yeah, that's a good point, actually.

Every one party state is entirely evil, undemocratic, and oppressive, yet absolute monarchies can be portrayed as good under the “enlightened kings.”

This is actually an interesting point, too-yes, I can easily understand why one-party states make many OTL readers uneasy; and indeed, IOTL most of these have not been particularly pleasant places to live in(and more than a few were/are downright horrible). But it doesn't always have to be that way. Sometimes one-party or dominant-party arrangements can happen for good reasons-like, for example, in a country recovering from some awful calamity in which either one or more of it's political parties became virulently authoritarian and/or corrupt, and/or only one liberal(liberal-progressive, liberal-conservative, etc.) political party was able to have a workable plan to save the country, etc.-that would certainly be interesting to see!

Liberal democracy is either usually the best thing to have ever existed, or the stepping stone used to transition a nation into dictatorship.

Eh.....it kinda is the best political system to have ever existed, though.....or at least, the least flawed. (But yes, the latter is correct-I haven't ever found a circumstance in which this trope was true, even IOTL.....and I think many of us know of at least a few circumstances where this did happen in spite of it.)

It feels like, people use the simple rising and falling action, when even though we are telling stories, if we are attempting to be realistic objectively there should be multiple rising and falling actions. Better stories should be told with an ending having both positives and negatives. And always somewhere to pick up on and improve.

Yeah, that would be interesting to see, for sure.

but this is interesting in a story, with the king having only one daughter, he decides that as women are not capable of ruling , it is best to sit and wait. show me human flaws and prejudices.

Taking into account human flaws and prejudices is always worth doing, for sure.....but it can and not that rarely is, overdone.

The third world is always doomed to poverty or irrelevance. Some areas can’t do better they must always fail.

Yeah, that's an issue, too. Especially because there was so much that went wrong in so many of these places IOTL, at least a fair bit of which might have been easily avoidable.

Also a pet peeve is when people do a socialist nation and IMMEDIATELY pivot from the economic form into a free market. Ignoring the 16,000 different things to try first. Or Ignore one party systems or even defensive multi party systems for these governments. The Westminster system is the only governing system that all nations must strive to.

That's a fair one, and indeed, it'd be interesting to see more ATL Communist countries try mixed economies before going to full capitalism.

There’s no Strong UN (e.g globally set migration or trade policy) or true world government (that isn’t just an extension of one country’s will)

Oh, yeah, that one actually bothers me a bit, too. Honestly, why not have a strong U.N., or even a global gov't? (Maybe not the latter in the present day, but I could see one taking shape by like, 2050 or something like that)

 

[Deleted member 163405]

Eh.....it kinda is the best political system to have ever existed, though.....or at least, the least flawed. (But yes, the latter is correct-I haven't ever found a circumstance in which this trope was true, even IOTL.....and I think many of us know of at least a few circumstances where this did happen in spite of it.)

Honestly you went through all of those comments and that’s amazing and I think the only one I can say I disagree with is this one. I generally don’t favor liberal democracy as being the best system; but my point is more that I dislike how in stories it’s shown to have NO flaws. It’s a fluid functioning system with absolutely no one left behind, no one being favored, and it’s entirely fair and equal. Especially in the third world where one party dominant or one party systems have brought some stability more so to some countries. Overall, I think governing is way more nuanced than one system equally copy pasted upon every nation on the globe, and is automatically treated like there would be no issues.

 

[Mitridates the Great]

I swear I have yet so see a timeline where it isn't colonised by either Britain or absorbed into Australia

Well I made the Great Iwi of Aoretaroa, ruled by Maoris who kicked the little settlement of English colonists and rule proudly his islands, keeping down the immigrants from another countries... And Australia isn't unified.

 

[Mitridates the Great]

There’s no Strong UN (e.g globally set migration or trade policy) or true world government (that isn’t just an extension of one country’s will)

And if it exists it is only so that the Gigachads of the United States can declare war on it in the name of "freedom". Of course, once the United States gains independence and annexes Canada and parts of Mexico, they decide that the war isn't really that important and that it's okay if the rest of the planet stays in UN hands. Which, naturally, is tyrannical and "nazi communist" if that means anything

 

[Mitridates the Great]

Eh.....to be quite honest, allowing a previously disadvantaged group to use their local language in schools, etc. is something that would have had value in the 20th Century as well, and even in the 19th Century to some extent(yes, part of this does depend on the locale, but still.....).

Yes, my point was to use it here as an example of "comparatively very minor concession compared to what could be demanded and what could be granted".
(For example, that ALSO they be allowed access to public positions, or use his local language for bureaucracy and culture, or rise in the army, or simply not risk being lynched under the most stupid pretexts such as committing the audacity to leave their own village).
The criticism is that the hitherto-oppressed-minority settles for this minimal concession, however insignificant, and never, ever tries to demand anything more than this.

 

[Mitridates the Great]

For me, it’s that Norse settlers in Newfoundland/Vinland are always militant pagans with oddly modern attachment to a formalized pantheon and very resistant to either Christianization or indigenous spiritual influences over the course of centuries.

I totally get it - rule of cool. Why write a story about an isolated bubble of Norse culture if you can’t preserve their faith? But at the same time, many on the voyages OTL would be Christians and those that weren’t would certainly not be so militant in their faith. Or they might have a pantheon and practices that are more localized (an adventurer from eastern Iceland might emphasize different deities and spirits than someone from northern Norway) and conform less to what we project back as “the Norse Gods”. And the possibility of Scando-Beothuk or Scando-Mi’kmaq cultural exchange and religious intermixing is interesting. Seems like a lot of possibilities outside the common trope tbh.

Eh, I'm sure part of this is also due to the fact that however superficial and based on completely fictional TV series like Berserk, Vikings or Vinland Saga, these authors' knowledge of Norse mythology... is still far more knowledge than they have of the native mythologies of North America. Not forgetting also the part that I think it's assumed that since local mythologies pretty much disappeared after colonization, the same thing would happen even if the colonizers are pagan Vikings minding their own business and not aggressively spreading through sword and fire the cult of Odin and Thor.

 

[Harshavardhana]

Always pisses me off
Makes AH look more like "America & Europe and friends"
There's can never be another superpower and even greater powers must be content to not be balkanized
And as a rule of thumb the scramble always happens

Lmao, so true. I remember joining Alternatehistory to read an Atahualpa SI I saw on the net and was so pumped to read timelines of various places and countries just to later realise that AH is basically alternatehistory for America and Europe and nothing else. Fuck you if you want to read something from about Africa, China, India and South America .

 

[holycookie]

Yes, my point was to use it here as an example of "comparatively very minor concession compared to what could be demanded and what could be granted".
(For example, that ALSO they be allowed access to public positions, or use his local language for bureaucracy and culture, or rise in the army, or simply not risk being lynched under the most stupid pretexts such as committing the audacity to leave their own village).
The criticism is that the hitherto-oppressed-minority settles for this minimal concession, however insignificant, and never, ever tries to demand anything more than this.

if there are several minorities, the tension is even greater because there is competition between these groups for the government's attention. Most common in human history is to elevate a minority to a social middle ground and use that group to control others. With this group becoming more brutal in the suppression, than than the majority group to show service. No there is not only a competition between them, as a group can attack the others to gain benefits. Who cares that other tribes go hungry, as long as yours is fed and happy.

Collectivist societies accept change and non-standard people with ease. If in individualistic societies this was not easily accepted, imagine a collective society.

 

[Mitridates the Great]

Lmao, so true. I remember joining Alternatehistory to read an Atahualpa SI I saw on the net and was so pumped to read timelines of various places and countries just to later realise that AH is basically alternatehistory for America and Europe and nothing else. Fuck you if you want to read something from about Africa, China, India and South America .

Not forgetting that the few parties that focus on Asia or South America can summarize their foreign policy as "Make every effort to appease the Western powers, particularly the United States and the United Kingdom. This can include things like jumping to their aid in wars against other European powers for reasons you don't care about (common examples, declaring war on Germany in one of the World Wars, backing the UK against any other colonial power interested in expanding in your neighborhood, or offering military aid to the United States in its Civil War.) Which usually won't do any good because those people you were appeasing will decide "I don't like that you're so big" anyway and attack you anyway."

 

[Mitridates the Great]

if there are several minorities, the tension is even greater because there is competition between these groups for the government's attention. Most common in human history is to elevate a minority to a social middle ground and use that group to control others. With this group becoming more brutal in the suppression, than than the majority group to show service. No there is not only a competition between them, as a group can attack the others to gain benefits. Who cares that other tribes go hungry, as long as yours is fed and happy.

Collectivist societies accept change and non-standard people with ease. If in individualistic societies this was not easily accepted, imagine a collective society.

What happened to the Kurds in the Ottoman Empire. And what makes a lot of people who know that the Ottoman genocide was perpetrated by Kurds (following instructions from the Ottoman government) say "uhm, what? Seriously, what?!" when it is suggested that, with a post-genocide POD, Armenia and Kurdistan will be the best of friends and enter into an alliance to defend themselves against "their enemies".

Which usually means "all the other neighbors who hate them because they believe, quite rightly by the way, that Armenia and Kurdistan only exist for the US/UK/The local Superpower to outsource the job of fucking the locals to them."

I think someone commented on it above, but there is a general (and generally wrong) idea that all "oppressed groups" will immediately forget all their problems with each other and join forces to "challenge the oppressor". Even if they are the kind of communities that normally hate each other/the only reason they stopped fighting is because someone (usually the oppressor) told them that the next one to move would have the full weight of their army on them. That usually doesn't work that way, and in America they like to believe it's true (hahaha, it's not, even among themselves the various communities fight each other).