Miscellaneous <1900 (Alternate) History Thread

[Tibi088]

Then they'd replace it with something that is slavery in all but name, which was in fact what the Spanish did with their encomienda system or the forced labour the Jesuits used in their missions. It could probably even work the same way, where the not!slave traders go to Africa and buy the freedom of slaves on the condition they become indentured servants to pay off their debts. I can imagine the vague prospect of freedom sounds more appealing than a life of slavery, so they'd find plenty of volunteers. And to the African powers engaged in the slave trade, they'd act just as OTL to ensure there was always a large number of slaves ready for sale.

Reason being is that slavery was too highly demanded and too profitable in brutal operations like tropical sugar production and mining once the native population collapsed in part due to the brutality of said mining and plantation agriculture. If the Catholic Church bans slavery, then it will be replaced with something else lest Protestant states like England or the Netherlands gain an advantage.

The one interesting factor is that even if slaves are coerced into signing contracts for lifetime indenture, it would be harder to coerce their children into that same system. That would have a huge effect on the African diaspora in the New World where there'd be way more free blacks. And would the Spanish/Portuguese/French/whoever be importing as many women? Would there be more mixing between black and indigenous populations?

IMO the spanish and portugese where always less obsessed with race mixing than the eglish and other europeans.

Further though I agree with most of what you say I think there would be legal differences. The not!slaves would have at least some rights. The encomienda system was at least in theory placing also requirements on the holder of it. Also the system would be much easier to abolish when finally the time came for it as the not!slaves would not be considered the property of their not!master. I think its important that these people would by every side and by the law considered as people - human beings and not the property of someone else. With the greed still there but absent that level of dehumanization their lot though still horrible might be better compared to OTL.

What I mean is that at first glance the differences might not amount to much but there would be a lot of subtle difference that might be important later. Also I think especially children of spanish colonials and not!slaves might have a much better chance to become free man.

 

[Karolus Rex]

IMO the spanish and portugese where always less obsessed with race mixing than the eglish and other europeans.

Further though I agree with most of what you say I think there would be legal differences. The not!slaves would have at least some rights. The encomienda system was at least in theory placing also requirements on the holder of it. Also the system would be much easier to abolish when finally the time came for it as the not!slaves would not be considered the property of their not!master. I think its important that these people would by every side and by the law considered as people - human beings and not the property of someone else. With the greed still there but absent that level of dehumanization their lot though still horrible might be better compared to OTL.

What I mean is that at first glance the differences might not amount to much but there would be a lot of subtle difference that might be important later. Also I think especially children of spanish colonials and not!slaves might have a much better chance to become free man.

At least from the Portuguese side can say with some confidence that the church trying that would be meet with outright ignoring the edict, the Portuguese monarchy always made it clear to Rome that it's affairs in Africa, Asia and the Americas were to have as minimal imput from the Papacy as possible (to the point of making it clear any attampts to send papal envoys or prelates to Guinea or the Kongo would be meet by armed ships unless approved by Lisbon first) and more important in this context King Sebastião banned part of the slave trade in Asia, more specifically the buying of japanese slaves, and everyone ignored his edicts on the matter which can easily check as the ban on the trade was from the 1570s and in 87 Hideyoshi has to take his own measures to repress the portuguese slave trade in japan, later there was a ban on the trade of chinese slaves that was also ignored by the merchants.

 

[Anarch King of Dipsodes]

I don't know how much legitimacy "Felix V" had, though. For all I know, he was a complete 15th century laughingstock!

He was elected by the rump Council of Basel (most of its members had joined the Council of Florence). The rump retained many important prelates, such as the Archbishop of Arles. Felix V hung on for 10 years.

However, when elected he was a secular prince who had adopted a quasi-monastic lifestyle out of piety. I'm thinking of someone who made a career in the church.

 

[Karolus Rex]

Was there ever a possibility of a Pope with legitimate children? I.e. a man who marries young, has children, loses his wife, enters the Church, and rises to be Pope? St. Francis Borgia followed such a path, and became Superior General of the Society of Jesus (the head Jesuit). Bonus points if the Pope's child or grandchild is a king.

Felix III, son of a priest and had two kids his great-great-grandson was Pope Gregory I, Pope Hormisdas' son went to become Pope Silverius, several more had legitimate children but these two are the biggest names that come to mind for their descendants also getting the papacy.

 

[Anarch King of Dipsodes]

Felix III, son of a priest and had two kids his great-great-grandson was Pope Gregory I, Pope Hormisdas' son went to become Pope Silverius, several more had legitimate children but these two are the biggest names that come to mind for their descendants also getting the papacy.

That covers it.

 

[ordinarylittleme]

What would be done with mentally disabled heir to the throne in the 16th/17th centuries?

 

[isabella]

What would be done with mentally disabled heir to the throne in the 16th/17th centuries?

I am not sure. In the 1700s he would be definitely excluded by the succession, if he has brothers who can take his place. Before that Carlos II ruled in Spain but he was the last legitimate male of the Spanish Habsburgs

 

[ordinarylittleme]

I am not sure. In the 1700s he would be definitely excluded by the succession, if he has brothers who can take his place. Before that Carlos II ruled in Spain but he was the last legitimate male of the Spanish Habsburgs

Well, yes, I know. I was more thinking of an AU where the Duke of Cornwall survives but is mentally impaired by his fever which gave him brain damage...

 

[ghappy1000]

With a pod after 1783 (the failure of the French-Spanish siege of Gibraltar), have the Spanish and British be besieged together in Gibraltar fighting the French in Gibraltar. What will such a siege do to Spanish claims on Gibraltar when it is clear that Spain and Britain defended Gibraltar together or else, Spain would have been kicked out of its mainland territory and Gibraltar?

https://www.alternatehistory.com/fo...7-the-2nd-edition.500687/page-6#post-21644755 has a successful Spanish siege of Gibraltar in 1727 when simultaneously fighting France and Britain, the reverse of above.

 

[VVD0D95]

What consequences would there be JF both Charles X and Louos Philippe duke of Orleans died in 1827?

@isabella @Kellan Sullivan @Emperor Constantine

 

[Wendell]

What would Central Asia look like today if Russia never annexed the Kazakh Khanate?

 

[Kellan Sullivan]

What consequences would there be JF both Charles X and Louos Philippe duke of Orleans died in 1827?

@isabella @Kellan Sullivan @Emperor Constantine

Louis XIX would likely not provoke a July Revolution type analogue, but his reforms wouldn't necessarily go far enough or fast enough for the extremists. And the fact he wishes to reform at all might startle Metternich and other conservatives in France.

No French involvement in Portugal, which means no Liberal Wars. Louis would have sympathy with Pedro, MT with D. Miguel, but I sincerely doubt he'd "get involved" to burnish his credentials. In fact, getting involved - on the wrong side - would probably cost him whatever goodwill he has with the army. OTOH, he might offer Louise d'Orléans as either a second wife for Pedro or a first wife for D. Miguel (his personal loathing of Fernando VII makes me think it's unlikely he'll sacrifice her to Spain),depending on who wins.

Likely he also gives Henri liberal tutors (by which I mean anyone not the Jesuits) so things could be looking very different in France going forward

 

[VVD0D95]

Louis XIX would likely not provoke a July Revolution type analogue, but his reforms wouldn't necessarily go far enough or fast enough for the extremists. And the fact he wishes to reform at all might startle Metternich and other conservatives in France.

No French involvement in Portugal, which means no Liberal Wars. Louis would have sympathy with Pedro, MT with D. Miguel, but I sincerely doubt he'd "get involved" to burnish his credentials. In fact, getting involved - on the wrong side - would probably cost him whatever goodwill he has with the army. OTOH, he might offer Louise d'Orléans as either a second wife for Pedro or a first wife for D. Miguel (his personal loathing of Fernando VII makes me think it's unlikely he'll sacrifice her to Spain),depending on who wins.

Likely he also gives Henri liberal tutors (by which I mean anyone not the Jesuits) so things could be looking very different in France going forward

Intriguing that would be quite the development. By reforms do you mean bringing suffrage etc or?

 

[Kellan Sullivan]

Intriguing that would be quite the development. By reforms do you mean bringing suffrage etc or?

That part I'm hazier on. I think Louis XIX was certainly far more liberal than his dad, I don't think he'd have gone full bore Napoléon-LARPer like Pedro I did. At the same time, I don't think he and Madame Royal would've had as harmonious a marriage as they did if their views were too radically different. Even MT thought her father-in-law was chancing his arm with the Four Ordinances, and when she heard that Fernando VII had abolished Salic Law noted that "France should've done that a long time ago".

So I suspect Louis XIX was "left of Metternich, right of Palmerston".

 

[VVD0D95]

That part I'm hazier on. I think Louis XIX was certainly far more liberal than his dad, I don't think he'd have gone full bore Napoléon-LARPer like Pedro I did. At the same time, I don't think he and Madame Royal would've had as harmonious a marriage as they did if their views were too radically different. Even MT thought her father-in-law was chancing his arm with the Four Ordinances, and when she heard that Fernando VII had abolished Salic Law noted that "France should've done that a long time ago".

So I suspect Louis XIX was "left of Metternich, right of Palmerston".

Ahhhi see interesting

 

[ordinarylittleme]

What would Central Asia look like today if Russia never annexed the Kazakh Khanate?

Why don't they do it ITTL?

 

[Wendell]

Why don't they do it ITTL?

Any number of reasons I suppose. Maybe heightened tensions with the British?

 

[Grey Wolf]

What would Central Asia look like today if Russia never annexed the Kazakh Khanate?

Presumably then they don't go for Khiva, Bukhara and Kokand either?

Persia probably ends up ruling over the Kazakh lands. The other khanates might end up as British protectorates, like Afghannistan, but will never ben colonised

 

[Votre Idéolinguiste Local]

Presumably then they don't go for Khiva, Bukhara and Kokand either?

Persia probably ends up ruling over the Kazakh lands. The other khanates might end up as British protectorates, like Afghannistan, but will never ben colonised

How would Persia get to control the Kazakh Khanate if Britain's the one controlling places like Bukhara and Kokand ?

 

[Wendell]

Presumably then they don't go for Khiva, Bukhara and Kokand either?

Persia probably ends up ruling over the Kazakh lands. The other khanates might end up as British protectorates, like Afghannistan, but will never ben colonised

No direct Russian rule over the Kazakhs would mean no direct Russian rule over points south, but I'm open to a series of Russian protectorates in the region like what Khiva and Bukhara were in OTL.