Miscellaneous <1900 (Alternate) History Thread

[tus3]

The South could've done something similar to apartheid South Africa and officially illegalize the practice, but covertly keep it in place

Would that be politically possible in the CSA?

Abraham Lincoln had promised them he would protect slavery through a constitutional amendment if they did not secede; however, they then decided to secede anyway. That does not give me the impression the CSA would be willing to make compromises.

 

[LibPrime]

Abraham Lincoln had promised them he would protect slavery through a constitutional amendment if they did not secede; however, they then decided to secede anyway. That does not give me the impression the CSA would be willing to make compromises.

If Southern officials said "It's high time we join our civilized Anglo brethrens and abolish slavery", then I doubt slavery would be abolished. However if they made some promise whereby slavery would be replaced by debt slavery instead, then I think there's a shot of "slavery" being abolished.

 

[SodaMan1996]

How long would Abraham Lincoln have lived if he wasn't assassinated?

 

[LibPrime]

What would be the policies of Emperor Britannicus if by some miracle Uncle Clau Clau dismissed Agrippina and Nero from Rome?

 

[Grey Wolf]

How long would Abraham Lincoln have lived if he wasn't assassinated?

His father, and Abe's adult son lived to be in their seventies, so unless Abe had some health complaint I don't know about that would be a good bet - another 15 years or so

 

[odieluck]

How large could the Asian population in the American south have grown if Chinese indentured labor replaced enslaved labor similar to how Indian indentured labor did in British Caribbean?

 

[ramones1986]

How large could the Asian population in the American south have grown if Chinese indentured labor replaced enslaved labor similar to how Indian indentured labor did in British Caribbean?

Expect the same reaction as California if the Asian population there was large enough.

 

[The End But Soon]

Bit of a fun idea I had: Manichean Rome VS Christian Persia.

What if after, say, Constantine is defeated in the Battle of Milvian Bridge, Christianity undergoes a far more violent period of repression. Sometime down the line, an emperor of a similar calibre to Constantine becomes enamoured with the great syncretizing faith of Manichaeism, and institutionalises it. Further persecutions and forced conversions of Christians sees them flee into the Sassanian Empire which, after a period of crisis and collapse, is replaced by a new Christian dynasty.

The ideological battles of this timeline would be interesting to follow. Considering no change to their frontiers, I could imagine an enlarged holy land (in the Manichean world view) stretching to Mesopotamia (which is under Persian rule), whilst the Christian Persians conversely view Palestine - their holy land - as under tyrannical Roman domination. The hostile relations between Rome and Persia would be further inflamed due to the belief that their enemy killed the founding figure of their faith (Jesus killed by the Romans; Mani killed by the Persians). You can imagine all the fun propagandizing and historiographical debates that would arise from this. It might honestly lock the two rivals into a more bitter struggle than OTL Christianity/Islam.

 

[LibPrime]

Bit of a fun idea I had: Manichean Rome VS Christian Persia.

What if after, say, Constantine is defeated in the Battle of Milvian Bridge, Christianity undergoes a far more violent period of repression. Sometime down the line, an emperor of a similar calibre to Constantine becomes enamoured with the great syncretizing faith of Manichaeism, and institutionalises it. Further persecutions and forced conversions of Christians sees them flee into the Sassanian Empire which, after a period of crisis and collapse, is replaced by a new Christian dynasty.

The ideological battles of this timeline would be interesting to follow. Considering no change to their frontiers, I could imagine an enlarged holy land (in the Manichean world view) stretching to Mesopotamia (which is under Persian rule), whilst the Christian Persians conversely view Palestine - their holy land - as under tyrannical Roman domination. The hostile relations between Rome and Persia would be further inflamed due to the belief that their enemy killed the founding figure of their faith (Jesus killed by the Romans; Mani killed by the Persians). You can imagine all the fun propagandizing and historiographical debates that would arise from this. It might honestly lock the two rivals into a more bitter struggle than OTL Christianity/Islam.

I wonder if the Muslims after Prophet Muhammad pbh would be influenced by the Manichaeans due to their, probable, prominence in the Eastern Mediterranean.
ITTL is the whole empire Manichaean or is it only popular in certain provinces like Achaea, southern Gaul, etc? If the latter, does that mean Egypt and the Levant would be Christian?

 

[Arkenfolm]

Expect the same reaction as California if the Asian population there was large enough.

That's a big "depends on who you're asking." The planter elite sponsored Chinese immigration at several points because they were always in need of more workers, but the problem with the Chinese was the Chinese really hated the job and had well-developed social networks that would help their community start businesses (which usually served blacks) and hire their relatives and other Chinese and thus gain an alternative means of employment. Basically they were too "entrepreneurial" (or seen as such by the planter elite). But if you had large enough numbers of Chinese, there would inevitably be enough of them who could not obtain such a job or start such a business and that would fill some (but certainly not all) of the demand for workers.

That said, the common Southern whites would most certainly view it that way. Like in California, there was a perceived racial competition over the limited resources available for them. This would be akin to their views on blacks since the root of the animosity was the fear of blacks as competitors for wages and women.

So probably there would be an expanded system of segregation (elements of white-Asian segregation already existed), lynchings (as OTL), and serious calls to "send them all back to China". Unlike the proposals i.e. Theodore Bilbo's to send blacks back to Africa, this one would have a better chance to succeed since most of the Chinese would be first or second generation immigrants, they'd have the support of many Western politicians, and China could be coerced into taking back "their" people.

 

[The End But Soon]

I wonder if the Muslims after Prophet Muhammad pbh would be influenced by the Manichaeans due to their, probable, prominence in the Eastern Mediterranean.
ITTL is the whole empire Manichaean or is it only popular in certain provinces like Achaea, southern Gaul, etc? If the latter, does that mean Egypt and the Levant would be Christian?

I'm a 'butterfly extremist', so I doubt there would be anything approaching OTL Islam in this timeline, but ignoring that, if something like Islam were to arise, it would indeed be very similar to Manichaeism (though with a more strict monotheistic twist).

With the grassroots popularity of Christianity in North Africa, I doubt the Manichaen emperors would be able to entirely stomp it out. They would undoubtedly try, but the entrenchment of the faith amongst local leaders might prevent total extirpation.

This would lead to some interesting developments once *Christian Persia* arises; they may desire their holy lands (Palestine and Syria), and see North Africa (with its large Christian population) as an opportunity for expansion. If they managed to secure both, even for a short period of time, it might lead to a decisive break between European Rome and their African lands. One could imagine Manichaeism (largely confined to Europe over time) as being synonymous with the continent, whilst Christianity would be considered the barbarous practice of Easterners and Africans.

Unlike OTLs Christian/Islam split, however, the Europeans would be the ones praying four-times a day, and with the religious concerns over eating 'living matter', there might be a higher preponderance of vegetarianism in Europe.

Actually, there might be a number of interesting developments if Manichaeism becomes localised to Europe.

• Buddhist beliefs (which were present IOTL) might be more widely known (reinforcing the vegetarian point), and interest in Asia-beyond-Persia would be high, especially if Manichean communities continue to exist in Central Asia and China. Prester John might just be a Manichean in this timeline.

• Manichean beliefs about the Sun and Moon (e.g. the Moon being an emanation of Jesus) might lead to cultural activities during periods of solstice, lunar eclipses, etc. In Scandinavia, the Midnight Sun might be seen as one of the holiest periods of the year.

• Manichean beliefs about proselytising to 'all nations in all tongues' might preclude the *Roman Church* from centralising around Latin as the only liturgical language, so local differences between the syncretic Manichean faith might become more pronounced over time.

• Conversely, one might imagine Aramaic becoming the liturgical language of Christianity, with it spreading to Persia, India, and Central Asia in the East, and North/Sub-Saharan Africa in the West. This might lead to a great deal of cultural exchange with the European Manicheans, considering Mani himself wrote in Aramaic, and Jesus spoke it.

• I wonder how the crucifix would be seen by the European Manicheans? By the 3rd century it had become a prominent symbol for the Christians (so you could imagine the Persians adopting it when they convert), but Jesus remains a prominent figure in Manicheanism, and Mani was said to have died on the cross as well. Depending on what symbols the Roman Manicheans adopt, there might be some cultural struggles over who has 'ownership' of the cross ITTL.

 

[odieluck]

That's a big "depends on who you're asking." The planter elite sponsored Chinese immigration at several points because they were always in need of more workers, but the problem with the Chinese was the Chinese really hated the job and had well-developed social networks that would help their community start businesses (which usually served blacks) and hire their relatives and other Chinese and thus gain an alternative means of employment. Basically they were too "entrepreneurial" (or seen as such by the planter elite). But if you had large enough numbers of Chinese, there would inevitably be enough of them who could not obtain such a job or start such a business and that would fill some (but certainly not all) of the demand for workers.

That said, the common Southern whites would most certainly view it that way. Like in California, there was a perceived racial competition over the limited resources available for them. This would be akin to their views on blacks since the root of the animosity was the fear of blacks as competitors for wages and women.

So probably there would be an expanded system of segregation (elements of white-Asian segregation already existed), lynchings (as OTL), and serious calls to "send them all back to China". Unlike the proposals i.e. Theodore Bilbo's to send blacks back to Africa, this one would have a better chance to succeed since most of the Chinese would be first or second generation immigrants, they'd have the support of many Western politicians, and China could be coerced into taking back "their" people.

This leads me to a broader question, which is what are some PODs before 1900 that lead to a more diverse United States (without something like annexing all of Mexico) ?

another completely unrelated thought:

AHC: Have Christianity spread to the Maori before European contact

 

[LibPrime]

I'm a 'butterfly extremist', so I doubt there would be anything approaching OTL Islam in this timeline, but ignoring that, if something like Islam were to arise, it would indeed be very similar to Manichaeism (though with a more strict monotheistic twist).

With the grassroots popularity of Christianity in North Africa, I doubt the Manichaen emperors would be able to entirely stomp it out. They would undoubtedly try, but the entrenchment of the faith amongst local leaders might prevent total extirpation.

This would lead to some interesting developments once *Christian Persia* arises; they may desire their holy lands (Palestine and Syria), and see North Africa (with its large Christian population) as an opportunity for expansion. If they managed to secure both, even for a short period of time, it might lead to a decisive break between European Rome and their African lands. One could imagine Manichaeism (largely confined to Europe over time) as being synonymous with the continent, whilst Christianity would be considered the barbarous practice of Easterners and Africans.

Unlike OTLs Christian/Islam split, however, the Europeans would be the ones praying four-times a day, and with the religious concerns over eating 'living matter', there might be a higher preponderance of vegetarianism in Europe.

Actually, there might be a number of interesting developments if Manichaeism becomes localised to Europe.

• Buddhist beliefs (which were present IOTL) might be more widely known (reinforcing the vegetarian point), and interest in Asia-beyond-Persia would be high, especially if Manichean communities continue to exist in Central Asia and China. Prester John might just be a Manichean in this timeline.

• Manichean beliefs about the Sun and Moon (e.g. the Moon being an emanation of Jesus) might lead to cultural activities during periods of solstice, lunar eclipses, etc. In Scandinavia, the Midnight Sun might be seen as one of the holiest periods of the year.

• Manichean beliefs about proselytising to 'all nations in all tongues' might preclude the *Roman Church* from centralising around Latin as the only liturgical language, so local differences between the syncretic Manichean faith might become more pronounced over time.

• Conversely, one might imagine Aramaic becoming the liturgical language of Christianity, with it spreading to Persia, India, and Central Asia in the East, and North/Sub-Saharan Africa in the West. This might lead to a great deal of cultural exchange with the European Manicheans, considering Mani himself wrote in Aramaic, and Jesus spoke it.

• I wonder how the crucifix would be seen by the European Manicheans? By the 3rd century it had become a prominent symbol for the Christians (so you could imagine the Persians adopting it when they convert), but Jesus remains a prominent figure in Manicheanism, and Mani was said to have died on the cross as well. Depending on what symbols the Roman Manicheans adopt, there might be some cultural struggles over who has 'ownership' of the cross ITTL.

You should write a timeline on this. I’d be interested to see how this Manichaean Europe and Christian Persia would develop, with both despising the other for killing their prophet.
Also is the reason why Europeans ITTL would pray 4 times a day is due to anything prescribed by Mani/Manichaeism?

 

[The End But Soon]

You should write a timeline on this. I’d be interested to see how this Manichaean Europe and Christian Persia would develop, with both despising the other for killing their prophet.

It would be interesting, especially if Manichaeism/Christianity diverges significantly from how they are/were worshipped in OTL. I would probably like to write it too, I have a bunch of notes on Manichaeism (plans for a 'No Islam TL' that I never got around too), but with my moving house and juggling other stories, I'm a touch swamped. I wish mass collaborative timelines were more common on this website; I would gladly work on timelines with a lot of other people, if only to save on the hassle of carrying the entire story.

But yeah, the mutual recriminations between Rome and Persia would be particularly strong here, though it raises the question; how would the Manichean Romans square-the-circle of Jesus (perhaps more revered than Mani himself) being killed by their state? Well, when I was trawling through my sources, I came across a quote (I'm paraphrasing):

"He delivered the [Son of God] to the foes. He betrayed Truth. For the sake of a reward that the Jews gave, he offered up his own lord and teacher".

What that's basically saying is that some Manichean authors - like the Christians - viewed the Jews as the cause of Jesus's execution, and not the Romans themselves. In a TL where Rome converted to the 'religion of light', no doubt they'd shit on the Jews just as hard as the OTL Christians. In the Manichean worldview, the Jews, the Christians, and the Pagans - all of them - are worshipping the Lord of Darkness, and not the true God of Light. If the Manicheans totally separate themselves from the Judeo-Christian tradition (perhaps to spite the Christian Persians), would Jews be no longer welcome in Europe at all? Would they perhaps be better off in the Christians lands of Persia and North Africa? I guess it depends on how faith and politics develops in the Christian kingdoms of the East.

Also is the reason why Europeans ITTL would pray 4 times a day is due to anything prescribed by Mani/Manichaeism?

Whilst a lot of information we have on the Manicheans comes from Islamic sources (and should be read critically), it does appear that the Manichean laypeople did pray 4 times a day, and it wasn't just a latter invention by Arabic/Persian authors. Multiple mandatory prayers appear to be a common practice amongst a lot of mystical cults in the 1st Millennium Middle East, so the later Islamic Fajr appears also to be part of this tradition, and not lifted whole-cloth from the Manicheans.

When I was planning my 'No Islam TL', I actually wanted to play around with this concept by linking the prayers to the four major prophets of Manichaeism. So you have prayers at Dawn (Zoroaster), Sunrise (the Buddha), Noon (Jesus), and Nightfall (Mani). They all would have different prayers associated with them, and special hyms that would be sung in places of public worship. I figured that the Noon prayers to Jesus could be shifted around over time when the Moon appears, due to the association between Jesus and the Moon. Ultimately, it all depends on how Manichean beliefs diverge over time; they were highly syncretic, so there is a decent chance that a lot of Roman religion gets subsumed into the new state church (like Christianity in OTL), but I haven't yet laid out what elements would be merged with Roman Manichaeism.

 

[Arkenfolm]

What that's basically saying is that some Manichean authors - like the Christians - viewed the Jews as the cause of Jesus's execution, and not the Romans themselves. In a TL where Rome converted to the 'religion of light', no doubt they'd shit on the Jews just as hard as the OTL Christians. In the Manichean worldview, the Jews, the Christians, and the Pagans - all of them - are worshipping the Lord of Darkness, and not the true God of Light. If the Manicheans totally separate themselves from the Judeo-Christian tradition (perhaps to spite the Christian Persians), would Jews be no longer welcome in Europe at all? Would they perhaps be better off in the Christians lands of Persia and North Africa? I guess it depends on how faith and politics develops in the Christian kingdoms of the East.

I've wondered about that myself regarding how any sort of gnostic state would function in regards to antisemitism, but I'm not honestly sure it matters. Antisemitism was the norm in medieval Europe since the Bible refers to Jews as the synagogue of Satan and repeatedly makes it clear the Jews rejected Jesus and helped ensure he was put to death. I don't see how claiming they worship the god of darkness is much worse than that, especially when antisemitic beliefs evolved to include Jews murdering Christian children for blood rituals.

The real question is whether Jews have an economic niche in Europe regarding the practice of usury which was very important to their community. I think it's conceivable to imagine that Europe under a different religion may well have no economic space for Jews and an actively hostile attitude that would see the Jewish community gradually converted, driven away, or outright murdered.

 

[The End But Soon]

I've wondered about that myself regarding how any sort of gnostic state would function in regards to antisemitism, but I'm not honestly sure it matters. Antisemitism was the norm in medieval Europe since the Bible refers to Jews as the synagogue of Satan and repeatedly makes it clear the Jews rejected Jesus and helped ensure he was put to death. I don't see how claiming they worship the god of darkness is much worse than that, especially when antisemitic beliefs evolved to include Jews murdering Christian children for blood rituals.

Oh, absolutely; Christian hatred for the Jews and the hideous beliefs they held had some provenance in existing Roman antisemitism. In fact, from what I can parse from my sources on Manichaeism, it seems that the religion was adopted largely by existing Marcionite Christian communities in Rome. Despite Mani's Elcesaite heritage, it seems that the Manichean rejection of the Old Testament was some sort of draw for the anti-Jewish Christians who were raised in Rome's antisemitic environment. If Rome were to adopt Manichaeism in-whole or in-part, discrimination against the Jews would take on a frightfully similar visage to OTL; only this time, the Manicheans would be railing against the child-murdering, Christ-killing, worshippers of darkness.

The real question is whether Jews have an economic niche in Europe regarding the practice of usury which was very important to their community. I think it's conceivable to imagine that Europe under a different religion may well have no economic space for Jews and an actively hostile attitude that would see the Jewish community gradually converted, driven away, or outright murdered.

"For, in order not to harm melons, you judge that it is better to slay a human being by usury. Is this the justice that one should seek and preach or rather a lie that one should curse and condemn? Is this a memo rable act of mercy or rather a damnable act of cruelty? "

That is a line by Augustine in one of his writings about Manichaeism, suggesting that they practiced usury, or at least did not have religious injunctions against it. I know that we should be highly skeptical of a polemist par excellence like Augustine, but there is nothing in my readings that suggest that the Manicheans were necessarily opposed to usury. If this is indeed the case, the Roman Manicheans might just see no place for the Jews in Europe and drive them out en masse from the Empire. If that happens, and the Christian Persians were more amenable to their presence, you might just have the core Jewish territories be in the Middle East, Central Asia, India, and possibly North Africa (wherever the Christians are in TTL, basically). Even if they are only grudgingly accepted, the historiographical developments from this would be interesting, what with the Persian kings of old liberating the Jews from Babylon, then allowing them to settle after their expulsion from Manichean lands.

 

[LibPrime]

What’re some reasons as to why political authority was centrally located in the Han civilian government while in Rome, political authority was divided between the Praetorian Guard, the military, the emperor, and the senate to a degree?

 

[PGSBHurricane]

Is it possible to get an American Civil War relatively similar to the real one (about slavery, southern secession because of it, etc.) but it becomes so destructive that no one wins this AH American Civil War?

Possibly in a scenario where the Civil War started in 1850 due to there being no Compromise of 1850 (everything breaks down in Congress and lines become solidly entrenched in the ground). The North would have less of an industrial advantage over the South but it's possible, for the sake of this scenario, that both North and South become utterly determined to win the war at all costs that it ends up being more destructive than anyone anticipates or is worth.

 

[PGSBHurricane]

On a separate note, if France Antarctique were to survive in South America (possible POD being that Villegaignon doesn't expel the Calvinists from the colony), what's the most likely spot in the region for the French to choose as their second settlement other than OTL's Rio de Janeiro? Did the French also have any formal plans for expansion beyond OTL Rio that could be looked at?

 

[sampleswift]

Were the Union generals in the American Civil War really that awful other than Grant, Sherman, and Meade?
There's a common conception that those three were the main competent Union generals and everyone else was far less competent?