The History Thread!

@ LG: That was WAY before the Deluge, you

...

I'll take a shot of Brain Bleach please.

I'm curious as to what would happen if the Gunpowder Plot had succeeded.

England would treat Catholics even worse.

You mean Protestant. Last time I checked the Gunpoweder Plot was a Catholic plot.

And so they would be retaliated against.

Not really, if the plot does succeed in blowing up James yet is caught before the execution of Phase II, that is, installing Princess Elizabeth as Queen.

Exactly.

edited 19th Mar '11 10:49:07 PM by Kinkajou

Last time I checked James wasn't exactly the popular king. Not quite as bad as Henry VIII, but nothing to write home about. That plus the fact that at that time England still had a sizable catholic population means that the outcome could go either way.

Who knows, the Pope might go ballistic and then all bets are off...

Random bit I just found yesterday: Proof that the Mongols wouldn't go very far if they tried to attack Europe en masse via the Anatolia.

edited 19th Mar '11 10:52:51 PM by ArgeusthePaladin

Ah, Ain Jalut. That cemented Mamluk control of Egypt.

And perhaps the Habsburgs could exploit this moment of weakness. France, doubtful, since the tolerant Henry IV (he of Paris is worth a mass fame) is king there.

Mm. If it had happened a few years earlier, the English Civil War might not have happened. Interesting...

Well, depending on who would be king after James I, it may still not have.

If Henry Frederick Prince of Wales does not die in the plot he could take power, but if not, then it's all up to Charles.

Not sure about the Habsburg, because at that time the nearest contender for England's naval power had already been taught a severe lesson. What I can expect is at least a moment of chaos within the newly established Anglican Church.

Either way, the religious composition of England after that would be vastly different from what it is today.

@ Mongols: I have always felt that the prime reason why the Mongols had been so successful thus far is because their enemies underestimated them GRAVELY. From the Jin to the Persian Empire, as far as the Hungarian and Bulgarian monarchs, nobody took a race of steppe-dwelling horsemen with scant armor and noble ethos seriously. Seriously, comparing pre-1200 Mongolia to any of the above empire/kingdom is like comparing San Franciscan gangbangers with the Federal Police.

See people, Genghis is just that made of win. No wonder why today there are like 11 million people being his distant descendants.

Kinky: It would have been a pretty big blast. I doubt he would of if he was near the blast.

And it took a class of slave warrior horsemen to best the Mongols.

Mongols were like the Vicky equivalent of the guy who researches nothing but Artillery and Organization techs.

Damn Munchkins.

edited 19th Mar '11 11:10:59 PM by ArgeusthePaladin

Though once their lack of Government and Culture tech became apparent, they became overextended.

I guess they bought the other inventions through diplomatic deals.

You mean "give us your tech or we'll burn down your cities, rape your women, and leave a pile of skulls in the ruins"?

Gunboat diplomacy is a form of diplomacy too, isn't it?

Don't you mean tumen diplomacy?

Oh, crap, I killed the thread.

Next topic: Henry Clay was one of the greatest American statesmen who never became president. Discuss.

Methinks if he had lived longer, there wouldn't have been a civil war. Dude was amazing at resolving conflicts and getting people who hated each other to compromise.

Nah, he doesn't need to live longer - at the very least his presidency would change US politics enough.

The ACW would not be averted, though, unless the Americans see it as a non-issue (and with the Industrial Revolution, it's nearly impossible).

Am I alone when I say that it is not the slavery that divided America for civil war, but rather the vastly uneven level of development between the two parts that ultimately led to it?

Slavery was part of it, though. Of course, chattel slavery was caused by the South deriving their wealth from non-subsistence agriculture, while the North had the coal required to fuel heavy industry.

Slavery was a very large issue in the Civil War, but it wasn't the only issue. It was the one that people got very upset over and argued over, and the one which contributed a lot to the cultural split between the north and south, but it wasn't the only debate.

It could have been a war of words, maybe, or maybe it could have been over sooner or not gotten as big.

So long as we're considering what could have been with American Politics if different people had become president, it's interesting to wonder if Alexander Hamilton had chosen to convince the electoral college to vote for Aaron Burr instead of Thomas Jefferson:

• Hamilton and Burr wouldn't have hated each other enough to get into their duel, so Hamilton would probably have eventually become president.
• Henry Clay, since he was an early ally of Burr, would probably have gotten a good position in Burr's cabinet (maybe giving Clay the political strength he needed to become president).

But who would Clay's vice president have been?

edited 22nd Mar '11 6:48:35 AM by AlirozTheConfused