Zyobot
Fleet admiral
Just a time-traveling robot stranded on Earth.
Posts: 17,352 
Likes: 7,260
|
Post by Zyobot on Jan 31, 2020 3:07:08 GMT
‘Less Brutal British Empire’, i.e. one less prone to subjugating other peoples via all-or-nothing conquest or helping facilitate a global slave trade like its competitors.
|
|
lordroel
Administrator
Posts: 68,033
Likes: 49,433
|
Post by lordroel on Jan 31, 2020 10:30:33 GMT
‘Less Brutal British Empire’, i.e. one less prone to subjugating other peoples via all-or-nothing conquest or helping facilitate a global slave trade like its competitors. Does that mean also smaller British Empire. |
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Member is Online
Posts: 24,857
Likes: 13,238
|
Post by stevep on Jan 31, 2020 14:01:11 GMT
‘Less Brutal British Empire’, i.e. one less prone to subjugating other peoples via all-or-nothing conquest or helping facilitate a global slave trade like its competitors.
Depends on what you mean by less brutal and when/where. If its less successful in its fighting with France and other colonial rivals the empire is going to be a lot smaller and you might not even have an independent British state but then assorted areas are going to be under the control of other nations, such as France, Spain, the Netherlands possibly also Russia and some other states. After all, while Britain was a pretty successful trading nation until industrialisation took off its was also a small one so the colonies, especially in the 18thC N America and the Caribbean were vital to Britain being able to play its part in the European power struggle.
Similarly with the slave trade, remembering it was as far as West Africa was concerned a trade, facilitated by interaction with coastal tribes, if Britain had been either unable or unwilling to take part then the other European powers would have done so.
There were times when there was an expansionist viewpoint in Britain, although generally because of the need to keep rivals in Europe from monopolising a region or to restore stability to an important trading area, expansion otherwise, as with a number of other powers, came largely from people on the ground, either local commanders looking for prestige, loot, whatever or colonists looking to take over land, often in opposition to what London was actually saying.
Examples of the 1st would be the fighting in India after the French were defeated, to restore some order after the Mughal empire self-destructed and their main rivals the Maratha failed to provide peace and stability in India the EIC stepped in simply to protect its interests, British support of the Manchu empire against both internal rebellions and encroachment by other powers and British intervention in Egypt in 1882 to secure the canal and also some stability inside Egypt itself.
Examples of the 2nd would be the frequent actions of colonists in N America, especially before 1776, in Australia and in southern Africa - Rhodes being a notorious figure in the latter case.
Steve
|
|
Zyobot
Fleet admiral
Just a time-traveling robot stranded on Earth.
Posts: 17,352
Likes: 7,260
|
Post by Zyobot on Apr 21, 2020 1:23:46 GMT
‘Classically Liberal Anarchism’, rather than the far-left variant that rose to prominence and latched itself onto the term IOTL. In this case, I’m guessing that an equivalent of anarcho-capitalism becomes more influential and well-known.
|
|
|
|
Post by TheRomanSlayer on Apr 22, 2020 2:39:19 GMT
I would have loved to see a PoD that results in not only Sweden gaining independence from Denmark after the Kalmar Union collapses, but Norway too. Or is Norway doomed to be attached to Denmark?
|
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Member is Online
Posts: 24,857
Likes: 13,238
|
Post by stevep on Apr 22, 2020 10:50:42 GMT
I would have loved to see a PoD that results in not only Sweden gaining independence from Denmark after the Kalmar Union collapses, but Norway too. Or is Norway doomed to be attached to Denmark?
Don't know the details about why Norway stayed with Denmark after Sweden/Finland broke away from the union. Was it by choice, or due to fear or Sweden or by force of Danish arms or what. Should be able to find a situation where it becomes independent even if its because both larger [demographically and militarily] states agree to avoid it coming under the others domination. I don't know what would happen to Iceland but suspect it would stay under Danish control however.
Alternative I remember reading that Norway was hit a lot harder by the early plague attacks in the 14thC and that's why it ceased to be an independent state. Possibly some way of avoiding this and Norway would be significantly more powerful, albeit I suspect it still has less 'good' land than either of the others so it would be weaker but still able to be independent?
Steve
|
|
Zyobot
Fleet admiral
Just a time-traveling robot stranded on Earth.
Posts: 17,352
Likes: 7,260
|
Post by Zyobot on Apr 28, 2020 23:24:19 GMT
‘Grover Cleveland Wins In 1888’. He seems to have been quite a small-government guy from what I’ve read (a more hands-off economic policy, support for the gold standard and wielding veto power as he did and all), so how might two consecutive terms of a Cleveland administration look like?
|
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Member is Online
Posts: 24,857
Likes: 13,238
|
Post by stevep on Apr 29, 2020 11:54:47 GMT
‘Grover Cleveland Wins In 1888’. He seems to have been quite a small-government guy from what I’ve read (a more hands-off economic policy, support for the gold standard and wielding veto power as he did and all), so how might two consecutive terms of a Cleveland administration look like?
Had a quick look at his career and seems to have been a man of strong principles, although there is a dark mark in his support of terrorism against Canada. He seems to have been something of a role-model for Teddy Roosevelt's later attempts to curtail the excesses of the gilded age and the widespread corruption.
Assuming he serves for two conservative terms then stands down he would avoid the unpopularity that came from the fiscal problems that occurred in his OTL 2nd term so would be better remembered. Also if a republican won in 1892 it might have meant they suffered the unpopularity, assuming economic problems occur pretty much to the same schedule. Which could have longer lasting impacts. However suspect the latter splits in the Democrats with the rise of the agrarian and pro-silver movements are still likely.
If he's not in power from 1893 then the coup in Hawaii is likely to be supported by Washington earlier as he OTL refused to accept it.
Steve
|
|
lordroel
Administrator
Posts: 68,033
Likes: 49,433
|
Post by lordroel on Apr 29, 2020 12:26:53 GMT
‘Grover Cleveland Wins In 1888’. He seems to have been quite a small-government guy from what I’ve read (a more hands-off economic policy, support for the gold standard and wielding veto power as he did and all), so how might two consecutive terms of a Cleveland administration look like? Had a quick look at his career and seems to have been a man of strong principles, although there is a dark mark in his support of terrorism against Canada. He seems to have been something of a role-model for Teddy Roosevelt's later attempts to curtail the excesses of the gilded age and the widespread corruption. Assuming he serves for two conservative terms then stands down he would avoid the unpopularity that came from the fiscal problems that occurred in his OTL 2nd term so would be better remembered. Also if a republican won in 1892 it might have meant they suffered the unpopularity, assuming economic problems occur pretty much to the same schedule. Which could have longer lasting impacts. However suspect the latter splits in the Democrats with the rise of the agrarian and pro-silver movements are still likely. If he's not in power from 1893 then the coup in Hawaii is likely to be supported by Washington earlier as he OTL refused to accept it. Steve
Looking at the 1888 United States presidential election it seems Cleveland won the popular vote and he lost New York by a razor-thin margin. If he won, then he could have won the election. |
|
|
|
Post by CastilloVerde on Apr 30, 2020 2:29:42 GMT
It may be the defining event in medieval English history, but I don't really see a lot of pods or timelines with Hastings going the other way. Or for that matter, Stamford Bridge. What would also be interesting would be Harald Hardrada defeating Harold Godwinson at Stamford Bridge and then also defeating William in alt-Hastings. A Norwegian Conquest rather than a Norman Conquest, if you will.
|
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Member is Online
Posts: 24,857
Likes: 13,238
|
Post by stevep on Apr 30, 2020 11:45:35 GMT
It may be the defining event in medieval English history, but I don't really see a lot of pods or timelines with Hastings going the other way. Or for that matter, Stamford Bridge. What would also be interesting would be Harald Hardrada defeating Harold Godwinson at Stamford Bridge and then also defeating William in alt-Hastings. A Norwegian Conquest rather than a Norman Conquest, if you will.
The latter option might be possible if Harald H was less careless and wasn't taken by surprise at Stamford Bridge but he would also have been weakened by the battle and lacked the local support that Harold had, especially in his home-base in Wessex so I think it would be unlikely for him to defeat William. Its likely to throw the country into yet more chaos and destruction. Also I get the feeling that Harald was more interested in loot and gaining prestige, like his repeated raids into Denmark in previous years.
Harold winning at Hastings is mentioned occasionally and he got very close although a while since I've seen an actual TL on it. If he had just survived until nightfall it would probably have happened as the Saxon position was largely holding and more reinforcements were on the way but many lost heart when the news spread that he had been killed. Never read it but when I was on AH a TL called "Those Halls Dream of Saxon Kings" IIRC and I think that turned into a very powerful English/British state from a quick look at it but that was a decade or so back.
Steve
|
|
|
|
Post by CastilloVerde on Apr 30, 2020 19:11:16 GMT
The latter option might be possible if Harald H was less careless and wasn't taken by surprise at Stamford Bridge but he would also have been weakened by the battle and lacked the local support that Harold had, especially in his home-base in Wessex so I think it would be unlikely for him to defeat William. Its likely to throw the country into yet more chaos and destruction. Also I get the feeling that Harald was more interested in loot and gaining prestige, like his repeated raids into Denmark in previous years. Wasn't Hardrada supported by Harold Godwinson's brother Tostig, IIRC? Not sure of the plausibility, but Tostig's support could lead to some more sympathy, for lack of a better word, among the Saxon populace for Hardrada providing enough reinforcements for the battle against William. However, this could lead to more problems down the line if Tostig rebels against a victorious Hardrada thus depriving Hardrada of needed local support in securing the kingdom. Harold winning at Hastings is mentioned occasionally and he got very close although a while since I've seen an actual TL on it. If he had just survived until nightfall it would probably have happened as the Saxon position was largely holding and more reinforcements were on the way but many lost heart when the news spread that he had been killed. Never read it but when I was on AH a TL called "Those Halls Dream of Saxon Kings" IIRC and I think that turned into a very powerful English/British state from a quick look at it but that was a decade or so back. Interesting. I'll take a look at that. |
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Member is Online
Posts: 24,857
Likes: 13,238
|
Post by stevep on May 1, 2020 11:34:58 GMT
The latter option might be possible if Harald H was less careless and wasn't taken by surprise at Stamford Bridge but he would also have been weakened by the battle and lacked the local support that Harold had, especially in his home-base in Wessex so I think it would be unlikely for him to defeat William. Its likely to throw the country into yet more chaos and destruction. Also I get the feeling that Harald was more interested in loot and gaining prestige, like his repeated raids into Denmark in previous years. Wasn't Hardrada supported by Harold Godwinson's brother Tostig, IIRC? Not sure of the plausibility, but Tostig's support could lead to some more sympathy, for lack of a better word, among the Saxon populace for Hardrada providing enough reinforcements for the battle against William. However, this could lead to more problems down the line if Tostig rebels against a victorious Hardrada thus depriving Hardrada of needed local support in securing the kingdom. Harold winning at Hastings is mentioned occasionally and he got very close although a while since I've seen an actual TL on it. If he had just survived until nightfall it would probably have happened as the Saxon position was largely holding and more reinforcements were on the way but many lost heart when the news spread that he had been killed. Never read it but when I was on AH a TL called "Those Halls Dream of Saxon Kings" IIRC and I think that turned into a very powerful English/British state from a quick look at it but that was a decade or so back. Interesting. I'll take a look at that.
On the 1st point Tostig had been made earl of Northumbria and was popular with King Edward [the Confessor] but had made himself very unpopular with the locals by taxing them more than they had been before and that resulted in a major revolt over his rule. See Tostig_Godwinson#Earl_of_Northumbria and the following two sections on his removal for more detail. [Although there has been some suggestions that in part Edwin, Earl of Mercia and his brother Morcar had a role in furmenting the unrest. They were the grandsons of Leofric of Mercia [their father only ruling for ~5 years] and the most powerful other family in England after the Godwine's and were probably deeply unhappy with the latter by this time ruling not only Wessex but also large chunks of E Anglia and with Tostig in the north leaving them feeling surrounded.]
Harold was forced to persuade Kind Edward to accept Tostig's removal and ultimately exile. His brother never forgave him and made a series of raids on the southern coast after Harold became king before heading north and linking up with Harald. This forces Harold to call out the southern fyths for a period, which made it more difficult for them to be summoned again when William landed while Harold was in the north fighting the Norse.
There is a story that Harold met both Harald and Tostig before the fighting started at Stamford Bridge and offered to restore him to the Earldom of Northumbria but that Tostig refused. Whether this was true I don't know as famously the Vikings were taken by surprise but Harold's rapid march north after Edwin and Morcar's forces had been defeated so I'm doubtful if there was actually time for this. Which is a pity as its supposed to have been when he also offered Harald land in England, namely 6 foot of English soil, or whatever is needed to bury him in. 
As such I doubt that Tostig would have helped Harald that much in gather support in the north if he had defeated Harald. There were a lot of Vikings in the region but they were mainly of Danish descent and their relations with Norway were not good at this point so that wouldn't have helped. Much of the region had surrendered to him and offered hostages but I think that was because they had much choice after the defeat at Battle_of_Fulford.
In terms of the TL on AH IIRC I tried to find it a couple of years back and couldn't. However I may have needed to have logged on and didn't look for long so hopefully its still there somewhere.
Hope that helps.
Steve
|
|
|
|
Post by CastilloVerde on May 1, 2020 20:54:33 GMT
Wasn't Hardrada supported by Harold Godwinson's brother Tostig, IIRC? Not sure of the plausibility, but Tostig's support could lead to some more sympathy, for lack of a better word, among the Saxon populace for Hardrada providing enough reinforcements for the battle against William. However, this could lead to more problems down the line if Tostig rebels against a victorious Hardrada thus depriving Hardrada of needed local support in securing the kingdom. Interesting. I'll take a look at that.
On the 1st point Tostig had been made earl of Northumbria and was popular with King Edward [the Confessor] but had made himself very unpopular with the locals by taxing them more than they had been before and that resulted in a major revolt over his rule. See Tostig_Godwinson#Earl_of_Northumbria and the following two sections on his removal for more detail. [Although there has been some suggestions that in part Edwin, Earl of Mercia and his brother Morcar had a role in furmenting the unrest. They were the grandsons of Leofric of Mercia [their father only ruling for ~5 years] and the most powerful other family in England after the Godwine's and were probably deeply unhappy with the latter by this time ruling not only Wessex but also large chunks of E Anglia and with Tostig in the north leaving them feeling surrounded.]
Harold was forced to persuade Kind Edward to accept Tostig's removal and ultimately exile. His brother never forgave him and made a series of raids on the southern coast after Harold became king before heading north and linking up with Harald. This forces Harold to call out the southern fyths for a period, which made it more difficult for them to be summoned again when William landed while Harold was in the north fighting the Norse.
There is a story that Harold met both Harald and Tostig before the fighting started at Stamford Bridge and offered to restore him to the Earldom of Northumbria but that Tostig refused. Whether this was true I don't know as famously the Vikings were taken by surprise but Harold's rapid march north after Edwin and Morcar's forces had been defeated so I'm doubtful if there was actually time for this. Which is a pity as its supposed to have been when he also offered Harald land in England, namely 6 foot of English soil, or whatever is needed to bury him in.
As such I doubt that Tostig would have helped Harald that much in gather support in the north if he had defeated Harald. There were a lot of Vikings in the region but they were mainly of Danish descent and their relations with Norway were not good at this point so that wouldn't have helped. Much of the region had surrendered to him and offered hostages but I think that was because they had much choice after the defeat at Battle_of_Fulford.
In terms of the TL on AH IIRC I tried to find it a couple of years back and couldn't. However I may have needed to have logged on and didn't look for long so hopefully its still there somewhere.
Hope that helps.
Steve
Thank you for this insightful reply. Interesting information to consider when making an alt-1066 TL indeed. Fulford was an interesting battle. IIRC the defeat of the two earls was pivotal to the Norman Conquest as it forced Harold to march north to defeat Hardrada. I wonder if instead Edwin and Morcar defeated Harald & Tostig allowing Harold Godwinson to face William when he landed (Pevensey?) rather than Hastings. Regarding the TL, I looked around on AH.com and Google, but alas could not find it. |
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Member is Online
Posts: 24,857
Likes: 13,238
|
Post by stevep on May 2, 2020 10:58:09 GMT
On the 1st point Tostig had been made earl of Northumbria and was popular with King Edward [the Confessor] but had made himself very unpopular with the locals by taxing them more than they had been before and that resulted in a major revolt over his rule. See Tostig_Godwinson#Earl_of_Northumbria and the following two sections on his removal for more detail. [Although there has been some suggestions that in part Edwin, Earl of Mercia and his brother Morcar had a role in furmenting the unrest. They were the grandsons of Leofric of Mercia [their father only ruling for ~5 years] and the most powerful other family in England after the Godwine's and were probably deeply unhappy with the latter by this time ruling not only Wessex but also large chunks of E Anglia and with Tostig in the north leaving them feeling surrounded.]
Harold was forced to persuade Kind Edward to accept Tostig's removal and ultimately exile. His brother never forgave him and made a series of raids on the southern coast after Harold became king before heading north and linking up with Harald. This forces Harold to call out the southern fyths for a period, which made it more difficult for them to be summoned again when William landed while Harold was in the north fighting the Norse.
There is a story that Harold met both Harald and Tostig before the fighting started at Stamford Bridge and offered to restore him to the Earldom of Northumbria but that Tostig refused. Whether this was true I don't know as famously the Vikings were taken by surprise but Harold's rapid march north after Edwin and Morcar's forces had been defeated so I'm doubtful if there was actually time for this. Which is a pity as its supposed to have been when he also offered Harald land in England, namely 6 foot of English soil, or whatever is needed to bury him in.
As such I doubt that Tostig would have helped Harald that much in gather support in the north if he had defeated Harald. There were a lot of Vikings in the region but they were mainly of Danish descent and their relations with Norway were not good at this point so that wouldn't have helped. Much of the region had surrendered to him and offered hostages but I think that was because they had much choice after the defeat at Battle_of_Fulford.
In terms of the TL on AH IIRC I tried to find it a couple of years back and couldn't. However I may have needed to have logged on and didn't look for long so hopefully its still there somewhere.
Hope that helps.
Steve
Thank you for this insightful reply. Interesting information to consider when making an alt-1066 TL indeed. Fulford was an interesting battle. IIRC the defeat of the two earls was pivotal to the Norman Conquest as it forced Harold to march north to defeat Hardrada. I wonder if instead Edwin and Morcar defeated Harald & Tostig allowing Harold Godwinson to face William when he landed (Pevensey?) rather than Hastings. Regarding the TL, I looked around on AH.com and Google, but alas could not find it.
No problem. Being a Brit interesting in history its a period of attention since its the last time a foreigner became a monarch purely by military conquest, as opposed to having widespread support.
If the northern earls had won at Fulford then its very likely Harold would have won against the Normans. He could have reacted a lot more quickly and with more resources. The march north and then south again was draining on the army and Stamford Bridge, despite catching the Vikings unprepared and divided, was an hard fought battle with significant losses.
I had a brief look again and couldn't find it either. Possibly been removed at some point for some reason. Have a vague memory of a brief looks at the tail end of it and there was something about the English/British [can't remember which] forces withdrawing from a now independent Arabia, which was in the modern era IIRC so probably a hell of a lot of differences. It could have been a fairly wild Britwank or a well researched TL but can't tell.
Steve
|
|
