mojojojo
Gone Fishin'
IIRC dosen't Denmark reap similar benefits from the introduction of one of the Australian tubers?
Lands of Red and Gold
- Thread starter Jared
- Start date
- Status
twovultures
Donor
What would be the effects of that? A more powerful Catholic church
Possibly, but not necessarily. I was thinking more of Southern Europe industrializing faster and on a much larger scale than OTL.
And, for that matter, a more densely populated North Africa which could also industrialize or, alternatively, create a large diaspora in the Americas.
Hnau
Banned
Good stuff Jared! So, what I see here is James II of England is TTL's version of Louis XIV of France and that there will still be a English Civil War but no Glorious Revolution, instead a continuation of Absolutism in the style of Charles I. It's going to be interesting when more details appear concerning this alternate English Civil War. The question is... what's happening without France if the Sun King isn't the paragon of absolute monarchy? I mean, it looks like some form of absolute monarchy will happen there, but will it be as extreme? Will we see a switch, with a more liberal France and a more conservative England?
It also seems to me that you are giving Sicily a sort of Dutch experience, by making Piazzi (already an aristocrat or no?) your William the Silent and introducing limited monarchy there because of its rebellion against the Spanish crown. As such, it seems like ITTL modern Western democracy could have its roots in Sicily rather than England! Imagine that... I wonder what this would mean. Perhaps more of a democratic influence among the Catholic countries? Also, if Sicily is gaining its independence sooner ITTL, will it make a move on southern Italy like it did IOTL, but sooner, and as such begin the Italian unification sooner as well?
Love it love it love it! Keep up the great work, Jared.
It also seems to me that you are giving Sicily a sort of Dutch experience, by making Piazzi (already an aristocrat or no?) your William the Silent and introducing limited monarchy there because of its rebellion against the Spanish crown. As such, it seems like ITTL modern Western democracy could have its roots in Sicily rather than England! Imagine that... I wonder what this would mean. Perhaps more of a democratic influence among the Catholic countries? Also, if Sicily is gaining its independence sooner ITTL, will it make a move on southern Italy like it did IOTL, but sooner, and as such begin the Italian unification sooner as well?
Love it love it love it!
Keep up the great work, Jared. Much depends on when exactly the English Civil War happens ITTL (my guess is the 1650s to 1660s timeframe, as it was mentioned that it was fought during Charles II's reign, not under the regency, so it probably started after he reached majority in 1651) and what kind of political regime precedes it. We know that Cavendish was the regent during Charles II's minority, but we have not seen yet what his internal, and especially ecclesiastical, policy was.
Did he support High Churchmen as strongly as Charles I did in OTL? Did he provoke conflict with the Scots as OTL Charles I did in the late 1630s?
If Cavendish treated the Puritans better, there could be even less emigrants coming to New England than there were in OTL, with fascinating consequences for history of the whole of North America.
Then again, if he was as oppressive as Charles I was (at least in England) but the English Civil War came later (say, because the regent was more moderate in Scotland and did not provoke the stand-off of 1639-1640 that doomed Charles I), the war would come after a far longer period of quasi-dictatorship, causing far larger emigration over that longer period to the Netherlands/New England (assuming Cavendish's power was weaker on the other shore)/somewhere else.
I mean, in OTL Puritan emigration to New England fell drastically in the early 1640s, as the godly people were fighting to reform the Old Country and looked to be winning their fight at first, but should they see no chance to even live as they wanted, much less make others to live as they directed, wouldn't the great migration continue and become even greater ITTL? On the other hand, the OTL Restoration didn't bring about another massive Puritan exodus, so it may be that the Puritans gradually lost their enthusiasm for emigrating, even under an openly hostile (but not murderously so) political regime.
Consequences of an even stronger Puritan presence in New England, should it come to pass, would be equally fascinating for the New World's, and by extension the entire planet's, history. Should the Puritans come to the Netherlands en masse, they would strengthen that country (and, quite possibly, improve its position in the colonies, including the New Netherlands, which again changes the Americas' history, with consequences differing from those caused by the larger migration to New England scenario).
Did he support High Churchmen as strongly as Charles I did in OTL? Did he provoke conflict with the Scots as OTL Charles I did in the late 1630s?
If Cavendish treated the Puritans better, there could be even less emigrants coming to New England than there were in OTL, with fascinating consequences for history of the whole of North America.
Then again, if he was as oppressive as Charles I was (at least in England) but the English Civil War came later (say, because the regent was more moderate in Scotland and did not provoke the stand-off of 1639-1640 that doomed Charles I), the war would come after a far longer period of quasi-dictatorship, causing far larger emigration over that longer period to the Netherlands/New England (assuming Cavendish's power was weaker on the other shore)/somewhere else.
I mean, in OTL Puritan emigration to New England fell drastically in the early 1640s, as the godly people were fighting to reform the Old Country and looked to be winning their fight at first, but should they see no chance to even live as they wanted, much less make others to live as they directed, wouldn't the great migration continue and become even greater ITTL? On the other hand, the OTL Restoration didn't bring about another massive Puritan exodus, so it may be that the Puritans gradually lost their enthusiasm for emigrating, even under an openly hostile (but not murderously so) political regime.
Consequences of an even stronger Puritan presence in New England, should it come to pass, would be equally fascinating for the New World's, and by extension the entire planet's, history. Should the Puritans come to the Netherlands en masse, they would strengthen that country (and, quite possibly, improve its position in the colonies, including the New Netherlands, which again changes the Americas' history, with consequences differing from those caused by the larger migration to New England scenario).
Excellent as always, though I find I have a subtle preference for this one somehow. Couldn't speak as to why.
A fair number of portions of Europe were conspicuous by their absence. Intriguing.
A fair number of portions of Europe were conspicuous by their absence. Intriguing.
Well, nowhere have I said that the natives will completely stop being masters of the situation... just that they will be under immense pressure.
Some societies certainly won't survive. (Presumably, at least two of those are obvious). Others may, because of reasons having to do with geography, acquisition of technology, and so forth which give them a better chance. Note: chance, not definitive.
More populous southern Europe is certainly an unusual contrast from OTL. It could still go in a number of ways, and I haven't worked out all of them myself yet, but at a minimum it will mean that the balance of power between northern and southern Europe doesn't shift as much as it did in OTL.
Yes, Denmark is also having an agricultural revolution caused both by Aururian crops and also the spread of Aururian farming techniques.
One of the tubers (murnong) happens to be rather well-suited to some otherwise poor and rather agriculturally useless parts of Denmark. Another factor is that the Aururian knowledge of crop rotation (which is very good) inspires the earlier Danish adoption of red clover, which also improves agricultural yields.
The net effect is a rather more populous and wealthy Denmark. Denmark's population in OTL in 1700 was estimated 745,000. ATL Denmark (in the part within its OTL borders) will probably be higher than that, even allowing for the effects of the Aururian plagues.
What would be the effects of that? A more powerful Catholic church
More Catholics, certainly. Along with more Ottoman subjects. Higher population in general, and in particular higher urban/non-agricutural populations.
Depends on the path which industrialisation follows. The natural resources of southern Europe aren't well-suited to early industrialisation. There isn't that much iron ore or coal, and what there is wouldn't be easily accessible with the technology of the time.
Of course, if this timeline follows a different path to industrialisation, that may be another story.
North Africa will definitely have a higher population, too. How much higher is harder to judge, since it depends on how badly the soils were actually exhausted (not sure) and on the social aspects of the time, but certainly there could be more people around. Whether that will mean a mostly Muslim population emigrating to a still largely Christian Americas is harder to say.
James II isn't quite the Sun King, but he's the premier absolute monarch as far as the English-speaking world is concerned.
The Spanish-speaking world may have other ideas. Philip II springs to mind, or perhaps even a later Spanish monarch if the Aururian plagues can persuade the Habsburgs to stop inbreeding before the point where the last remaining monarch consists mostly of toenails.
In terms of the English Civil War, some more details will follow in due course. I have to admit, though, that the main focus of LoRaG will continue to be on Aururia, with the rest of the world being covered more in snapshots. In any case, there's already another timeline which covers an alternative English Civil War in more detail than I could hope to manage.
France is still an absolute monarchy, although the process it follows to get there is rather different with no direct involvement in the *30 Years' War or Fronde. There just isn't the same single long-lived, strong-willed monarch who epitomises French absolutism.
I didn't exactly have a Dutch analogue in mind. More the Sicilian Vespers of a few centuries before, who also tried to form free communes at the time. In the Advent Revolution, with a native monarch rather than a papal-backed foreign monarch (as was crowned post-Sicilian Vespers), the only real authority which Piazzi can draw on is "restoring ancient privileges" and communes, which soon morphs into a version of popular sovereignty.
Piazzi isn't an aristocrat, just a man with excellent political nous and personal charisma.
Well, the idea of democracy was hardly unique to England even in OTL. Italy wasn't short of republics, nor were the Dutch, to pick but two.
Still, I wonder how many Sicilian words will show up in ATL political science...
For a couple of generations, at least, the same foreign political backing which allowed Sicily to gain independence also means that it is not free to go adventuring in southern Italy. That will constraint it (and also lead to effective internal administration in turning Sicily into a well-functioning nation). After that, well, who knows?
Cavendish is a firm supporter of the High Church, although perhaps not as obnoxious about it as Charles I. This rubs off on Charles II, who is more obnoxious about it, which is one reason for the *English Civil War. I don't have exact dates for the ECW, but yes, sometime between 1651 and 1670.
"Not quite" to the first (though still pro-High Church). No to the second. Cavendish basically views Scotland as a backwater not worth the trouble of provoking; he's rather more concerned with the wars with the Dutch to provoke unnecessary trouble at home.
The question of English (esp. Puritan) emigration ITTL is a complex one. The Aururian plagues short-circuit much emigration for a decade or so between 1627 and 1637; there are some migrants, but only a handful compared to OTL. Some colonies are founded later, and others abandoned for a while. The equivalents of Boston, Connecticut, etc are not founded until several years later, while the earliest colony in OTL New Hampshire was started during the 1620s but abandoned after the plagues.
By the 1640s, there is some Puritan emigration to New England, but not so much migration for other reasons. (Not as many merchant venturers, and not much in the way of royalists fleeing for the colonies.) The spread of kunduri trade cuts into the attractiveness of Jamestown, which slows some of the later migration to Virginia (which last into the 1650s/1660s or so OTL). The Puritan emigration declines after a while, too, but for a time it is the biggest source of emigrants.
Some of the Puritans do end up in the Netherlands (old and new), but probably more of them end up in the English North American possessions.
I'm not familiar with the Norwegian Law or the 1877 & 83 laws. The King's Law ITTL is indeed openly described earlier than in OTL, because the monarchy already has greater prestige and power because of its expanded possessions (Rugen etc) where it is already absolutist.
Excellent as always, though I find I have a subtle preference for this one somehow. Couldn't speak as to why.
A certain prominence, perhaps?
No deep and meaningful reason other than that this article was meant to be the ATL version of the OTL wikipedia article on absolute monarchy, but with deletion of references to modern absolute monarchy.
The real Wikipedia article touches on France, Denmark-Norway, Sweden, Prussia and Russia. The ATL article substitues absolutist England for France, and *Saxony for Prussia (with some modifications, since *Saxony is not simply Prussia Under Another Name), and throws in a Sicilian section and the usual Portuguese running joke.
So there's no particular need to read anything into the fate of other European nations which weren't covered in this article (e.g. Spain). Most of them do become absolutist if they weren't already, of course, but that's mentioned in the ATL article.
Now I recall that you mentioned New England being the premier power, industry and population-wise, of the LoRaG world's North America. On the other hand, was not it the premier industrial region in OTL, too, at least before the mid-19th century, and the undisputed cultural leader well into the 20th century at least? I guess that with slower settlement of Virginia, New England is relatively even stronger ITTL (when compared with OTL). However, I take it from your reply that slower migration to Virginia was not offset by stronger migration to New England, compared to OTL, so overall the settlers are far thinner on the ground. Therefore, the American Indians, even decimated by the Aururian plagues, may still have more success resisting the settlers. Combined with Aururian influences, it makes for a strikingly different history of North America (which you have hinted at before).
Actually Jared has said before that the Aururian plagues mean the Native Americans are in even worse shape than OTL, to the point that groups like the Cherokee which survived until OTL's present lose all cultural cohesion, folding into the Congxie and perhaps other groups. I think he's said before that it's only a sure thing in Mesoamerica and the Andes that the Native cultures will survive ITTL.
I do wonder what will happen with the great interior however. New England seems rather boxed in, with New Sweden in Maine, New France in the OTL location, and Tigeria (sp?) blocking their movement west via the Hudson. It would seem that what IOTL would be the Midwest will be split between Alleghenia, Tigeria, and possibly New France.
1677 and 1683 respectively. They might be called codes in English for some obscure reason. Rather important legal codes, parts are still in use today (freedom of speech and agreement, both form and content) But then i might have a focus on this due to environmental factors.
Well, yes, the American Indians are in even worse shape than in OTL, I have not forgotten it, but the Southern Whites are weaker as well ITTL, with Virginia having far less settlers. Moreover, European-dominated colonies and then states are competing with each other ITTL throughout the modern history, without creating a hegemonic power early on as in OTL. Conflicts between settler states can force at least some of them to ally with this or that Native tribe, as the French and the British did in the 18th and early 19th century in OTL.
Of course, it can very well be still not enough to secure a meaningful and lasting autonomy for any Native entity outside Mesoamerica and the Andes. But still, the LoRaG is the world where a strong independent African- and Native-influenced culture (that is, the Congxie) survives not far from the Atlantic coast, so it may be said that, even based on what we have already seen ITTL, the Whites are not as dominant in the LoRaG's North America as they have been in OTL.
It would be interesting, for example, to see how settlement of the Great Plains will unfold ITTL. If firearms and horses reach the Natives more or less on schedule, while settler flows come later and weaker, the alt-Lakotas or alt-Comanches may fare even better for a time than they did in OTL, Aururian plagues or not. Then again, their societies may collapse early on from added impact of new diseases. Some groups will undoubtedly have it even worse ITTL, but some new ones may emerge with strong Native influence (like the Congxie) and prosper.
mojojojo
Gone Fishin'
What effects would a wealthier and more populous Denmark have on world culture? Might it lead to Norse mythology becoming as popular a subject for art as Greek mythology was in OTL. You mentioned that a (decidedly sinister) version of elves were present in the popular culture of this TL. Are other creatures of Scandinavian folklore like trolls,huldra, nix and dwarves present as well? How are they depicted?
I somewhat doubt this. The interest in Norse Mythology mainly appeared during the Romantic era, and the nature of said era in Denmark was largely shaped by the faltering of said nation, if my art history is not too decayed by now. This Romantic nationalism that then emerged would be unlikely to take the same shape in a Denmark that is rather more prosperous - They would, I assume, be turning outwards, rather than inwards, and hence strive for more, well, universal themes, if nothing else.
This is not to say, of course, that Norse mythology won't figure at all - It will, most likely - but I doubt that it'll be enough of a focal point to spread it outside the country. Greek art has the advantage of having been regarded as some of the "Best. Things. Evar!" in Europe for quite a while; it's only natural that their motifs would spread.
If memory serves, that was the first Christmas special (here). And yes, what was being described there was that there was a period (circa 1870) when New England had the biggest industrial advantage over the rest of the continent. That would also be the point of biggest population advantage, too, more or less.
The industrial advantage of New England doesn't lead in the same direction as OTL (textiles are more limited in availability), but happens for the same underlying reasons, i.e. the opening of better farmland elsewhere on the continent leads to New England farmers being uncompetitive and turning to alternative sources of employment.
The advantage of New England will dissipate over time, though it will remain a significant nation into the twentieth century.
The patterns of migration are indeed different, although the biggest one is that migrants from the British Isles do not have the same overwhelming advantage over migrants from other parts of Europe.
This is partly due to lesser emigration from Britain (including Ireland for these purposes) and also partly due to more migration from Europe, for a variety of reasons. There are more Dutch colonists (or, at least, colonists from all over the place who ended up) in the New Netherlands, more Swedish colonists (including Finns and Germans), more French colonists in *Louisiana, and more and earlier Sicilians... somewhere.
That said, the effects of natural increase should not be underestimated. In places like Virginia in OTL, free migration more or less dried up by 1660 or thereabouts. (What came afterwards was a trickle). After that, the white population grew mostly by natural increase, and grew very, very fast. Even with lower initial migration, those Europeans who are in North America are still going to breed like rabbits.
In other words, the lower migration may have bought the Native Americans a generation, or maybe two. But it won't do much more for them than that.
Sadly, I don't think that the American Indians have gained anything except a little time. Their population has dropped further than OTL, and will be slightly slower to recover.
It's also worth noting that the Aururian influences are as much at the expense of the Native Americans as anything else.
This is very much a different history of North America, but the biggest difference is that the migration comes from a wider variety of European and, in small part, Aururian sources.
The Cherokee are Not Quite Dead, but those few who do survive are in fact pushed west of the Appalachians during King George's War (1722-1726). Quite a way west, and the Congxie keep pushing them west over time.
More broadly, yes, the effects of Aururian diseases make an already grim situation even worse for the American Indians. The problem is that, as in OTL, in many cases their contact with Europeans was not consistent enough to build up immunity. Instead, what happened was that their occasional contacts with Europeans were even worse because there was a deadlier cocktail of diseases, knocking back their populations even further.
The delayed European push into the interior (by a generation or two) doesn't do much to affect this.
Assuming no New England conquest of other regions, yes, getting into the Midwest is going to be rather difficult for them.
It's already noted that Alleghania pushes west over time. Tigeria may well do the same via the Hudson and/or the Great Lakes.
New France is a curious beast, but may well push up the Mississippi in part, too.
As for what happens with the St Lawrence, watch this space...
Virginia isn't that bad, though certainly slower than OTL. What it's lost is much of the last decade or decade and a half of migration that it got in OTL. A notable number, but not enough to depopulate the colony. There's still going to be high natural increase thereafter.
Other colonies will appear on the eastern seaboard eventually. Cavendia (kind of *South Carolina/Georgia) and Pembroke (kind of *Maryland, but again different) have already been mentioned. So while it's a slowdown, it's not in itself such a major blow to do more than delay the European penetration of the interior of North America.
The Congxie are around too, of course, but that doesn't mean much good news for the American Indians either. Worse, if anything, because the Congxie have the motivation to push into the interior earlier than Europeans.
Alliances with native tribes in the interior are almost certain, at several points. The problem is whether those alliances will lost longer than they are convenient for the Europeans or European-descended states. Perhaps, in some special circumstances, but the population differential is still going to be massive.
The Congxie are certainly noteworthy, and will have a significant part to play in the future of *North America. There are limits to their numbers and power, though, and it's worth mentioning that they have been shown to be pushed west (and then conquered, at least in part) by the later part of the nineteenth century.
The settlement of the Great Plains is going to be rather different, if only because the question is how are the settlers going to get there. Upriver along the Mississippi and then west? Westward from *Ontario? South from the lands of an *Hudson's Bay Company? North from *Texas?
Many competing states may leave the Great Plains peoples in the best position of any native states to survive for a while, although their long-term prospects may not be so promising.
Perhaps not. Classical mythology had been studied throughout Europe for centuries. Norse mythology would have a hard time catching up with that.
I like the idea of different Scandinavian mythological creatures becoming more popular ITTL (nix and huldra have promise), but I haven't given much thought to the details.
The mention to Portugal suggests that better food and more wealthy merchants helped revive the Cortes and strengthen it.
That's certainly one possibility.
Another is that TTL's version of wikipedia has Portuguese rather than Polish nationalists who tend to add irrelevant and usually inaccurate Portuguese references to every article they read.
I guess from all the nationalists, Portuguese history isn't going to be very pleasant?
Perhaps a Scandinavian analogue to Grimm's Fairy Tales is written, popular enough to make those creatures more well known.
mojojojo
Gone Fishin'
In OTL , outside of Tolkien what factors led to dwarves,trolls and elves becoming so well known outside Scandinavia?
- Status