Miscellaneous <1900 (Alternate) History Thread

[LibPrime]

Why are the archdeaconries/archdioceses of Europe fluctuate between large and small sizes? Eastern Europe is its own archdeaconry while France, Italy, Switzerland, etc are all separate individual archdeaconries. Does this relate to the population sizes of these areas during the Middle Ages?

 

[Count of Crisco]

Why are the archdeaconries/archdioceses of Europe fluctuate between large and small sizes? Eastern Europe is its own archdeaconry while France, Italy, Switzerland, etc are all separate individual archdeaconries. Does this relate to the population sizes of these areas during the Middle Ages?

I am probably wrong, but I assumed alot of the reason was national in nature, France, England, Spain, etcetera, all had the political and economic power to feel like they were better than being grouped into the same dioces as their neighbors.

 

[Codae]

Why are the archdeaconries/archdioceses of Europe fluctuate between large and small sizes? Eastern Europe is its own archdeaconry while France, Italy, Switzerland, etc are all separate individual archdeaconries. Does this relate to the population sizes of these areas during the Middle Ages?

No, the Diocese of Europe is an Anglican thing that exists in parallel to the majority churches of the areas in question.

 

[John Fredrick Parker]

So this might be a thread topic, but I wanted to check first -- so paging anyone familiar with early Islamic history (@wakobear @GoulashComrade, @John7755 يوحنا etc) -- but What if Ali had been among the casualties at the Battle of the Camel? If we assume everyone else who died in the battle OTL still dies TTL, who does that leave as the leading figure on each side? Obviously, Aisha is still the senior figure of her faction, though with both Talha and Zubayr fallen, it's not clear who she would support for Caliph.

In Ali's faction, meanwhile, you do have his sons, the oldest of who (Hasan) is about 40 at this point; however, I'm not sure if the supporters in his army would push for a leader so young, even if they were still victorious. The most senior of their factions leaders at the battle (FWIG) is Ammar ibn Yassir, who (as it happens) died shortly after the battle OTL.

Thoughts?

I had this question a while back (https://www.alternatehistory.com/forum/threads/plausibility-check-aishas-caliphate.504433/). The scenario I came up with was one where there Aisha wins at the Battle of the Camel, with a death of Ali and his sons, but al-Zubayr and Talha still die. Abd'Allah ibn al-Zubayr and other Quraysh then rally around Aisha in order to stave off total dominance from Muawiyah.

However having done more reading the problem is that Muawiyah is simply not a big enough boogeyman in order for this to work. You need a real existential threat to the Ummah in order for Caliph Aisha to become anything more than a fringe proposal. A more likely scenario is where Aisha forms a political alliance with another candidate and acts as the power behind the throne.

If you really want Aisha to be Caliph you need to get close to ASB territory. You could have the Battle of the Camel prove much more deadly to the senior leadership of the Quraysh (people who weren't even involved in the OTL battle need to die) and then Muawiyah, supremely confident in his position without any serious rivals, makes an extraordinarily large blunder by declaring himself a prophet on equal status with Muhammad. This idea is palatable amongst recent Syrian Arab converts who are used to ideas of semi-divine kingship in the Persian tradition, or palatable enough that Muawiyah isn't immediately knifed in his sleep. He begins a march down south to assert his claim to Prophethood and a panicked, leaderless Qurayshi coallition nominates Aisha as their Caliph.

 

[LibPrime]

If in a timeline where the Islamic conquests never occur, would Iberia be conquered by the Berbers sometime in the 8th-10th centuries? The Visigoths were constantly fighting each other so I could definitely see some Berber tribal confederation conquer them and maybe Byzantine North Africa.

 

[Collondi]

If a timeline where the Islamic conquests never occur, would Iberia be conquered by the Berbers sometime in the 8th-10th centuries? The Visigoths were constantly fighting each other so I could definitely see some Berber tribal confederation conquer them and maybe Byzantine North Africa.

Probably, IIRC the berbers were already raiding and being used as mercenaries across the strait. This invasion would likely happen later, and you could make the counter argument that if they were given more time, they would be able to strengthen control over Spain, especially if they get spooked by a resurgent Frankish kingdom. That would make the invasion a lot harder than OTL, especially if it doesn’t have the same convenient timing, with Roderic having been an unpopular king.

 

[Zyobot]

'AHC: Chinese Folk Religion Becomes A Major World Religion'.

Doesn't need to attain global reach or influence the "moral framework" of the world at large (like Christianity or Islam), but it should at least be a continent-wide majority religion (like Buddhism or Hinduism).

 

[Collondi]

French Revolution AHQ:
1. how plausible would it be for the coalition forces early on in the war of the first coalition to put in more effort in an offensive with France? Basically, rather than retreating at the first sign of trouble in Valmy, would they be willing to attempt to march all the way to Paris?

2. Assuming the above scenario happens, who would win? As I understand it, the French had superior numbers, but the coalition forces were more experienced, and there was significant distrust between the radical French government and the top officers. Also, how does this change the revolution? Would France become even more radical? Maybe they execute Louis without a trial out of fear of the coalition coming to Paris and freeing him?

 

[John Fredrick Parker]

Now we’ve had threads discussing Henry VIII’s third wife surviving the birth of her son, and we’ve had threads discussing his most capable servant avoiding execution and serving longer; but despite the later being a very likely result of the former, we haven’t really discussed them as much as part of the same scenario. So I figured we’d fix that.

So -- how does Cromwell serving in government longer, as a result of Jane living, change the course of English history in the 1540’s? (Let’s say he lives to 1555, which should be doable seeing as one of his successors as Privy Seal was born the same year and died in office at that time.) Does the Rough Wooing still happen; for that matter, is Prince Edward engaged to infant Queen Mary? Does Henry still invade France in 1544? After Henry’s death, can Cromwell maintain a strong position on the Regency Council; how is Edward’s minority/rule affected overall?

Thanks.

 

[HortenseMancini]

I think a good deal of this depends on Cromwell maintaining Henry’s good will through his death which is not inevitable. Cromwell may be able to prevent some of the excess spending in the last decade of Henry’s reign, which would in turn sent up his successor a bit better. Cromwell also probably is able to maintain whatever position he is given in young Edward’s regency, though again a lot of this depends on what happens later in Henry’s reign - does Dudley still rise, etc.

As for Scotland I don’t think it would be out of the question for butterflies to result in James v having a surviving son ITTL, in which case Mary (if she still exists) will be Queen of England without much issue. If the situation is as IOTL, I think Cromwell is too much of a pragmatist to ultimately support the rough wooing, but he does have religious sympathies in the Protestant direction so who knows. (Another thing to consider…how does Jane surviving affect the religious situation of young king Edward?)

 

[Salvador79]

I wonder if the Harrapan Civilization had a social order similar to our own.
I say this as throughout history, you tend to find that societies with similar social systems act in similar manners. For example, the Ottomans and Spanish were both frontier societies originally, conquering a very rich realm that had a long and proud history. They had religious warriors (Ghazis/Conquistadors) that conquered other empires. They were both absolute monarchies supported by a ""subservient"" priest class and had strong militaries. Although they had some differences, like how the Ottomans had janissaries or how the Spanish were more religiously intolerant, for the most part they're pretty similar.
Other examples are feudal Japan & medieval Europe, the Scythians & Lakotans (?), etc.
Perhaps the Harrapan social order began with town councils that had a wealthy citizenry, which evolved into a managerial class like the one we have. This might explain why there aren't any major temples around and why there are pre planned cities containing sewage systems that're built in a similar manner all over the Indus river valley (similarly to how cities are built in the modern day). But then again, there are so many flaws with this theory. For example, how'd the Harrapans have a wealthy population?

Now, I am somewhat skeptical as to your overall theory - while I do think social structures and system dynamics are key to understanding history, I am not sure how easily one can equate societies - categories always have their limitations.
But as for Harappa, I have had similar thoughts before. Not about it resembling "us" - but it is indeed interesting to what extent the material relics tell us so much more about structural patterns and similarities between settlements than about, say, hierarchies or religion. Now, that may be an argument for them being a very materialistic-minded, pragmatic culture - or one which was deeply religious but whose religion was highly abstract. In both cases, there would be striking similarities with today, yes, although we should not overdo this - and we simply don't know.
A "managerial class" at that time would not necessarily equate a wealthy population - it would just mean that material-economic activity would follow an agenda set by specialised / professional people who are, at the same time, not the immediate politico-military big men, nor religious-sacerdotal leaders. Whether that group got wealthy on this job or whether it was something they had to do out of social tradition, for prestige, or whatever, would be left open. Also, of course, it's still not clear whether this postulated social class did exist there in the first place.
As for wealth, that's the easiest question of them all, I suppose. Their irrigation systems must have generated enormous agricultural output growth, and they expanded, and as long as they could expand, they would escape limitations on the carrying capacity.

In a world where religion mainly stuck to an ethnic-polytheist character e.g Shintoism in Japan, would this mean a more secular modern world? India seems to contradict this at least on stated census but idk

This is a good and difficult question. The shortest answer I can come up with is: I think, the word "secular" would take on a different meaning in such a world, making the comparison difficult. As for the answer, I am not sure that it is pre-determined into one or the other direction. The assumption behind the hypothesis seems to come from a reflection on Roman development, right? I'm not sure how generalisable that is.

What's the likelihood of the Frankfurt Parliament uniting Germany under a republic? Is it even remotely possible? Perhaps with support from Britain or France?

I have attempted this in my unfinished TL stub.
My basic idea was:
1) some unwise reactionary bloodbath bringing the moderate liberal "halves" back closer together with the more radically democratic "wholes" in the immediate years before the outbreak of the Revolution
2) in March, the revolutionaries must arm the population
3) there would, in all likelihood, be civil war.

Britain would probably not aid such a republican Germany. France might, especially if - like in the Primavera d'Italia TL - the Revolution succeeds in Italy, too, so France doesn't fear another set of coalition wars against it.

 

[sampleswift]

What Da Vinci invention would be the most influential if it was actually mass-produced? Many of the Da Vinci inventions were not taken seriously by the Italian governments of his time, while others (like the helicopter, airplane, etc.) were too weak to work (they needed a better engine to fly properly, which was not possible with the technology of the time). (Another obstacle could be Da Vinci himself. He hated wars, so many of the Da Vinci war machines may not have been mass-produced because Da Vinci himself did not want this).