|
You will find here a selection of 100+ Alternate History Ideas
Select two of these ideas and write a Synopsis for an Alternate History.
ex.
9. Severe drought and bush fires ravage the east coast of the continent known as Terra Australis in the years leading up to and including 1770. When James Cook puts in at ‘Botany Bay’ he finds a charred wreck of a land and notes that the place does not seem fit for human habitation. A decade and a half later, when Britain is deciding what to do with its huge convict population, the southern continent is not considered as a viable option for transportation.
34. British Government decides to Sell their convict population into Slavery in the USA.
SYNOPSIS: After Terra Australis is rejected as too unsuitable for Colonization by James Cook, A Law (Convict Export Act 1783) is established by the British Parliament allowing Convicts to be sold into Slavery to the USA. With the sudden influx of wealth and the massive population reduction Britain sees this as a solution to its Irish Problem.
The Entire Irish Catholic Population of Ireland is sold into Slavery in the USA opening Ireland to be divided up into Private Estates by 1800AD.
You will find here a selection of 100+ Alternate History Ideas
Select two of these ideas and write a Synopsis for an Alternate History.
ex.
9. Severe drought and bush fires ravage the east coast of the continent known as Terra Australis in the years leading up to and including 1770. When James Cook puts in at ‘Botany Bay’ he finds a charred wreck of a land and notes that the place does not seem fit for human habitation. A decade and a half later, when Britain is deciding what to do with its huge convict population, the southern continent is not considered as a viable option for transportation.34. British Government decides to Sell their convict population into Slavery in the USA.SYNOPSIS: After Terra Australis is rejected as too unsuitable for Colonization by James Cook, A Law (Convict Export Act 1783) is established by the British Parliament allowing Convicts to be sold into Slavery to the USA. With the sudden influx of wealth and the massive population reduction Britain sees this as a solution to its Irish Problem.
The Entire Irish Catholic Population of Ireland is sold into Slavery in the USA opening Ireland to be divided up into Private Estates by 1800AD.
WHOA! Since when was Britain ever able to sell the entire population of Ireland into slavery!?
The Irish fought when religion was suppressed, if they tried to sell us into slavery I gaurantee you it would have been a bloodbath.
Protestants were vastly outnumbered in Ireland itself, and while the Empire certainly would have won an outright war, I find it unlikely that many of the influential figures who kept houses and estates in Ireland would have been okay with that kind of a bloodbath on England's doorstep.
The Law would never have been upheld, and it would likely end up costing Britain more than it earned them. That's a outright insane alternate history.
Not too mention that alot of American slavery was based on racial grounds, not religious grounds, if it was all of a sudden you'd have far less Italian and Spanish immigrants and settlers, not too mention that the war with Spanish territories and Mexico would have developed a far darker religious edge.
Australia worked because it sent convicts, some of whom were falsely imprisoned I'm sure, to a place at the other end of the world, and not into obvious slavery.
It's extremely, extremely unlikely that this would ever have happened. Maybe prison camps in the south of America, or Canada, but selling the entire millions of Irish catholics into slavery in the US?
Didn't they already have dozens upon dozens of indentured servants that were irish?
WHOA! Since when was Britain ever able to sell the entire population of Ireland into slavery!?
The Irish fought when religion was suppressed, if they tried to sell us into slavery I gaurantee you it would have been a bloodbath.
Protestants were vastly outnumbered in Ireland itself, and while the Empire certainly would have won an outright war, I find it unlikely that many of the influential figures who kept houses and estates in Ireland would have been okay with that kind of a bloodbath on England's doorstep.
The Law would never have been upheld, and it would likely end up costing Britain more than it earned them. That's a...
Agreed.
But I am sure that this thread is really intended as a serious one. After all, it was spawned by the "100+ alternate history ideas", which counts quite a few silly posts, and a lot of really frivolous ones. Like : 120. Thierry Henry gets a conscience, Ireland get its righteous place in the world cup and beats the crap out of Spain. That sort.
So, with historic plausibility conveniently out the window, I'm sure nobody intended to imply that Irish would accept being sent overseas as human cattle.
Anyway, as a rule of thumb, it would be nice that thread doesn't become a subtle way of insulting countries, people, etc. Mind your manners, people!
WHOA! Since when was Britain ever able to sell the entire population of Ireland into slavery!?
The Irish fought when religion was suppressed, if they tried to sell us into slavery I gaurantee you it would have been a bloodbath.
Protestants were vastly outnumbered in Ireland itself, and while the Empire certainly would have won an outright war, I find it unlikely that many of the influential figures who kept houses and estates in Ireland would have been okay with that kind of a bloodbath on England's doorstep.
The Law would never have been upheld, and it would likely end up costing Britain more than it earned them. That's a...
Agreed.
But I am sure that this thread is really intended as a serious one. After all, it was spawned by the "100+ alternate history ideas", which counts quite a few silly posts, and a lot of really frivolous ones. Like : 120. Thierry Henry gets a conscience, Ireland get its righteous place in the world cup and beats the crap out of Spain. That sort.
So, with historic plausibility conveniently out the window, I'm sure nobody intended to imply that Irish would accept being sent overseas as human cattle.
And Africans did?
Let's face it, it's possible. I don't think there would not be a battle of mostly epic proportions, but considering how indentured servitude works, I'd argue this was already happening.
WHOA! Since when was Britain ever able to sell the entire population of Ireland into slavery!?
The Irish fought when religion was suppressed, if they tried to sell us into slavery I gaurantee you it would have been a bloodbath.
Protestants were vastly outnumbered in Ireland itself, and while the Empire certainly would have won an outright war, I find it unlikely that many of the influential figures who kept houses and estates in Ireland would have been okay with that kind of a bloodbath on England's doorstep.
The Law would never have been upheld, and it would likely end up costing Britain more than it earned them. That's a...
Agreed.
But I am sure that this thread is really intended as a serious one. After all, it was spawned by the "100+ alternate history ideas", which counts quite a few silly posts, and a lot of really frivolous ones. Like : 120. Thierry Henry gets a conscience, Ireland get its righteous place in the world cup and beats the crap out of Spain. That sort.
So, with historic plausibility conveniently out the window, I'm sure nobody intended to imply that Irish would accept being sent overseas as human cattle.
And Africans did?
Let's face it, it's possible. I don't think there would not be a battle of mostly epic proportions, but considering how indentured servitude works, I'd argue this was already happening.
Not really, sure many of the large landowners where English, but their is a massive difference in mens minds between servitude and slavery. Also the irish were more repressed in official eyes than actuality, Catholicism was never stamped out because even when it was persecuted it was still practised in secret. And many Irish felt very strong ties to the land, which they saw as their land.
I'm not saying africans did, I'm saying that it's very different situation, Irish people were Britains neighbour, it would have been harder to ignore certain things, Irish people were not already slaves, nor was slavery a part of the culture, many Irish could read, the Catholic Irish sparked many attempts by Spain and France to attack Britain under the guise of liberating other Catholics, this would have been another excuse, etc.
As opposed to the vastly different world that was Western/Central Afirca at the time, where slavery was practised. Most of the slaves sold to the Colonies where sold by the Slave Coast culture, already captured and enslaved by other Africans, these slaves didn't have a single identity or ethnicity to themselves and where mostly from small villages or tribes, they couldn't read, most Europeans where too far away and didn't care hugely, etc.
Massively different situations. One happened and is history, one is extremely unlikely.
Gorel is right though, I should be more aware of the nature of this thread. Historical accuracy isn't the point, interesting alternatives are.
Not really, sure many of the large landowners where English, but their is a massive difference in mens minds between servitude and slavery. Also the irish were more repressed in official eyes than actuality, Catholicism was never stamped out because even when it was persecuted it was still practised in secret. And many Irish felt very strong ties to the land, which they saw as their land.
I'm not saying africans did, I'm saying that it's very different situation, Irish people were Britains neighbour, it would have been harder to ignore certain things, Irish people were not already slaves, nor was slavery a part of the culture, many Irish could read, the Catholic Irish sparked many attempts by Spain and France to attack Britain under the guise of liberating other Catholics, this would have been another excuse, etc.
As opposed to the vastly different world that was Western/Central Afirca at the time, where slavery was practised. Most of the slaves sold to the Colonies where sold by the Slave Coast culture, already captured and enslaved by other Africans, these slaves didn't have a single identity or ethnicity to themselves and where mostly from small villages or tribes, they couldn't read, most Europeans where too far away and didn't care hugely, etc.
Massively different situations. One happened and is history, one is extremely unlikely.
Gorel is right though, I should be more aware of the nature of this thread. Historical accuracy isn't the point, interesting alternatives are.
A few good points, there. Somehow, I don't see Spain and France attacking England in the name of liberating Ireland, though, even with Catholocism as a lubricant. I don't know why, but it seems just as unlikely as selling them into slavery(or indentured servitude) in the first place.
Also, good points with the differences between how Britain did slavery vs. America. I need to realize the differences there. Still, considering how indentured servitude works, I'd wonder if the differences between that and slavery were not simply in many's minds alone...
A few good points, there. Somehow, I don't see Spain and France attacking England in the name of liberating Ireland, though, even with Catholocism as a lubricant. I don't know why, but it seems just as unlikely as selling them into slavery(or indentured servitude) in the first place.
Spain and France have an history of attacking UK for much less than that... Think about the alliance between France and Scotland against the English in the middle age for example, complete with the sending of troops.
A few good points, there. Somehow, I don't see Spain and France attacking England in the name of liberating Ireland, though, even with Catholocism as a lubricant. I don't know why, but it seems just as unlikely as selling them into slavery(or indentured servitude) in the first place.Spain and France have an history of attacking UK for much less than that... Think about the alliance between France and Scotland against the English in the middle age for example, complete with the sending of troops.
Going with the alternate history motif, I could see something like that happening if England went completely protestant after King Henry's trysts. Would they fall beneath the might of a United Catholic Army, or would the idea of attacking other Christians rankle too much(not that it bothered them in the past, but we are talking alternate histories here)?
Going with the alternate history motif, I could see something like that happening if England went completely protestant after King Henry's trysts. Would they fall beneath the might of a United Catholic Army, or would the idea of attacking other Christians rankle too much(not that it bothered them in the past, but we are talking alternate histories here)?A few good points, there. Somehow, I don't see Spain and France attacking England in the name of liberating Ireland, though, even with Catholocism as a lubricant. I don't know why, but it seems just as unlikely as selling them into slavery(or indentured servitude) in the first place.Spain and France have an history of attacking UK for much less than that... Think about the alliance between France and Scotland against the English in the middle age for example, complete with the sending of troops.
Very, very, very unlikely... At the time, France and Spain were the two main european powers, with a quite strong rivalry bordering on open war, and England only a minor but rising player. Henry the Eighth first allied to Spain against France (through his first wife), then switched side and made peace with France, earning Spain's enmity.
So, no alliance between France and Spain against him.
Of course, you can imagine everything you want and stray far from known historical facts, but the whole eercise becomes pointless...
|
|
Going with the alternate history motif, I could see something like that happening if England went completely protestant after King Henry's trysts. Would they fall beneath the might of a United Catholic Army, or would the idea of attacking other Christians rankle too much(not that it bothered them in the past, but we are talking alternate histories here)?A few good points, there. Somehow, I don't see Spain and France attacking England in the name of liberating Ireland, though, even with Catholocism as a lubricant. I don't know why, but it seems just as unlikely as selling them into slavery(or indentured servitude) in the first place.Spain and France have an history of attacking UK for much less than that... Think about the alliance between France and Scotland against the English in the middle age for example, complete with the sending of troops.
How about the one where the UK is just a Provence of France? As such whole hosts of things would have changed.