#historical speculation

[a-crime-shaped-tail]

I wonder if asexual priests in history were ever listening to people in Confession talking about lust and were like, "Skill Issue, bro. It's so easy to NOT feel attracted to this person that way."

[idrawtooslow]

I kind of doubt that Vivaldi's student orchestra at the girls' school was full of incredibly talented instrumentalists, who could toss off his fast bravura passages without a hitch.

I can't help but imagine them as an ordinary school orchestra, most of whom aren't particularly good or talented... and they all dread orchestra practice, because Fra Antoni refuses to either simplify his masterworks for beginner players, or accept the results. Concerts always sound utterly horrible, everyone slogging through music they barely can play, at various tempos that are all less than Vivaldi is beating, and he's always purple and hyperventilating by the end.

[flowwochair]

Why did Jean-Baptiste Bessieres burn his correspondence? (a list of - unprofessional - theories)

Writing a post to de-stress in between one of the most annoying to research university assignments I've done in a while (what historians don't tell you is that research can be the biggest pain in the ass aspect of writing I guess).

Anyways, today in the Napoleonic Bubble server I was talking to some friends about Bessieres's mystery correspondence and reasons why he could've burned them (as his motive for doing such wasn't entirely clear, nor can we be certain of the contents of the many letters he burned). Here's a couple of the theories I came up with, I'm listing them off just for fun and to see what you guys think, I might be a history major but please don't take these too seriously as I literally came up with them on the spot as we were talking.

Let's start with the Murat related theories to get my BessiMu obsession out of the way first: 1 - Bessieres had been secretly corresponding with Murat This one is pretty self-explanatory, especially after Murat's betrayal, Bessieres himself could've been accused of treason had he had been corresponding with Murat. Furthermore, neither seemed to hold disdain for each other following Murat's betrayal. One point I will need you to keep in mind is that Murat grieved for Bessieres death, something I sincerely believe he wouldn't have done had they been in bad terms. In this case, their correspondence may not have been political, instead being general conversation between the two which Bessieres was still scared of being caught for. 2 - Bessieres had been corroborating with Murat in some other way - Bessieres was making plans with Murat either for Murat's return to France or for a potential attack from Murat. Bessieres, as Murat's long-time friend, would've been an excellent source of insider information for Murat if we're to believe they were still communicating. Where this theory falters is where you believe Bessieres's laid his loyalty more strongly/sincerely (with his boss and friend Napoleon, or with his long time friend and coworker Murat), additionally, I am unsure (regardless of Murat's access to insider info and his notorious stubbornness) how viable it would've been for Murat to literally fight his way into good graces again so...

Now for the other theories 3- Bessieres was working with France's enemies (betrayal theory) - Bessieres may have burned evidence of him providing information to France's enemies or requesting to switch over to their side. The realism of this theory once again depends on where you believe his loyalty was and how strong said loyalty was by the later years of his life.

(CW: DISCUSSIONS OF SUICIDE/POOR MENTAL HEALTH FOR THE NEXT 2 THEORIES)

4- Bessieres was planning to commit suicide - Bessieres in 1813 was reportedly in an incredibly depressive state. Although I do not believe his death was nor could've been planned/orchestrated, there is a possibility that him burning his correspondence was him preparing for such. He may have been planning to commit suicide at a later point, and his actual death may have happened to come earlier than he had planned. By 1813 Bessieres had become an incredibly hopeless and broken person, his friends were dying left right and center, one of his best friends had been entirely banned from France, the empire he had sworn loyalty to was on the edge of crumbling apart, he was in extreme debt, he wasn't short of reasons for suicidal behaviour/ideation. 5 - Bessieres was not in a sound state of mind - Bessieres burning his correspondence was an irrational decision. His mental state had been deteriorating and him burning the correspondence was evidence of him thinking illogically as a result of this. Said mental strain could've been caused by his depressive state or by PTSD he had developed along the course of his career.

(END OF CW)

6 - The correspondence was related to the blackmailing which he fell victim to - As you may or may not know, Bessieres's debt was largely caused by blackmailing involving affairs he had. The correspondence he burned could've been related to said blackmailing. Either as fuel for more blackmail or as evidence that he was being blackmailed.

Okay, that's all the theories I have so far, feel free to tell me what you think or even better: add your own theories!!! I'd love to know your thoughts or extra info you may have on this c:

[tmarshconnors]

What US Would Be Like if America Lost the Revolution

Imagining an alternate reality where the American Revolution was lost and the United States did not gain independence is a fascinating exercise in historical speculation. While it is impossible to predict with certainty how events would have unfolded, we can explore some possible scenarios.

Continued British Rule: If the American Revolution failed, the American colonies would have remained under British rule. This would have meant that the British Crown would have continued to govern the American territories, and the American colonists would have been subject to British laws, taxes, and regulations.

Limited Autonomy: It is possible that the British government, recognizing the discontent among the colonists, might have granted them some limited autonomy or representation in the British Parliament. However, it is unlikely that the colonies would have enjoyed the same degree of self-governance as they eventually achieved through independence.

Economic Implications: Without independence, the American colonies would have remained part of the British mercantile system. This system placed restrictions on colonial trade and favored British interests. As a result, the American economy may have been more dependent on British trade, limiting opportunities for domestic industrialization and economic growth.

Slavery: The issue of slavery, which played a significant role in the lead-up to the American Revolution, would have likely continued. The British Empire abolished slavery in 1833, so it is possible that slavery may have been abolished earlier in the American colonies under British rule. However, this would have varied depending on the specific circumstances and pressures within each colony.

Manifest Destiny and Westward Expansion: The idea of Manifest Destiny, which drove westward expansion and the growth of the United States throughout the 19th century, would not have emerged in the same way. The British Empire had a different approach to territorial expansion, and it is uncertain how it would have shaped the development of the American territories.

International Relations: The geopolitical landscape would have been vastly different. Without the United States as a separate nation, the balance of power in North America and the world would have shifted. Other European powers, such as France and Spain, may have had a greater influence in the American territories.

Alternative Paths: It is important to note that the desire for independence was not limited to the American colonies alone. Other regions of the world, inspired by the American Revolution, also sought self-governance and independence. The success or failure of the American Revolution may have influenced these movements in different ways.

Remember, these scenarios are purely speculative, and countless factors could have shaped the course of history in the absence of an American victory in the Revolution. The development of the United States and the world as we know it today would have been dramatically different.

[dancingchopines]

Just pondering a few Tudor what-ifs. I wonder what would have happened to the succession if these elements occurred:

1. Katherine of Aragon survived Henry

2. Henry had not executed Anne Boleyn but had her imprisoned or sent away like Katherine of Aragon

3. Henry had had his other marriages and failed to have any living legitimate sons 

4. If Henry Fitzroy had survived Henry

When Henry died, what would the succession have been like? I imagine it would have been a mess because a great deal of the country would have considered Mary the rightful heir and I know a living Katherine of Aragon would have been doing everything in her power to have her be queen. However anyone wanting religious reform would likely be backing Elizabeth and I know if Anne Boleyn had not been executed she’d be doing whatever she could for her daughter. And there might have potentially been a third faction around Henry Fitzroy by people who wanted a male successor? Either way, I think there might have been a civil war between the Mary and Elizabeth supporters. 

[feuillesmortes]

Sorry if this is random or silly but, I was thinking about fatalism and Margaret Beaufort and was wondering whether in an alternate universe where Edmund Tudor was a woman and Margaret a man but still had Henry Tudor (now Beaufort) if the outcome would have been similar. Could Male Margaret have taken the crown for herself with welsh support garnered by her/his son Henry’s Tudor heritage? Or was her being a woman (and not fighting in battles and under the radar) in a way essential for the end?

Hi! Yes, in terms of survival I think that being a woman was essential for Margaret. Like the Milanese Ambassador said, Edward IV had decided to ‘crush the [Lancastrian] seed’. After Tewkesbury Edward dragged her Beaufort cousins out of sanctuary and summarily executed them, and it’s possible he would have done the same to her, had she lived to that point. More under the cut!

But! It’s tempting to think that if she had been born a man everything could have changed, maybe the Wars of the Roses wouldn’t have happened at all! First of all, she would have been the Duke of Somerset, not her uncle Edmund Beaufort. Now, can we say that St Albans would never have happened because Edmund wouldn’t be a duke and wouldn’t have displeased the Duke of York? Unfortunately, unlikely. Even before his brother John, Margaret’s father, died, Edmund had been slowly gathering public offices and influence with Henry VI thanks to the patronage of his uncle Cardinal Beaufort and thanks to John’s absence while still a prisoner in France. Cardinal Beaufort was executor of his brother’s will and everything seem to suggest that he did everything in his power to politically advance his nephews. 

If John Beaufort had had a son, and the dukedom of Somerset had gone to him, (male!Margaret that is) it’s likely Henry VI would have created some other title to her uncle Edmund Beaufort. Thus, Edmund Beaufort would have still infuriated the Duke of York by being more prominent at court and by still likely losing Rouen and other cities to the French. Henry VI would have still refuted the charges against Edmund making Richard even more infuriated (was Edmund Beaufort dear to the king, his cousin? Was he charming, funny? Something must have explained Henry VI’s attachment to him!). So it’s likely that St Albans would have happened all the same.

Back to male!Margaret. Before going back to France John made Henry VI promise that, if he died in campaign, Henry VI would leave the guardianship of his child to his wife, Margaret’s mother. Henry VI didn’t exactly follow through with his word: Margaret was given as a ward to the Duke of Suffolk at the time, though she still remained under her mother’s care. Let’s say the same thing happens in this scenario or that she is given as a ward to her uncle Edmund. When St Albans happened she would’ve been a minor (twelve years old, to be precise). Henry Beaufort, her cousin, would have still stepped as the most senior male Beaufort while Margaret couldn’t be invested with her dukedom of Somerset. Let’s say she fights at Towton, when she would’ve been 18 years old, and survives and flees with her cousin Henry to exile in France. 

At 18 years old, she would not have been invested with her dukedom, but would have been informally called the Duke of Somerset all the same. Wow, she would’ve had a big prize on her head! Historically, no male Beaufort married before 25 iirc, so it’s likely she would have remained unmarried all through exile like her cousins Henry, Edmund and John Beaufort. In that scenario, Henry (Tudor/Beaufort) would have not existed. 

BUT! Let’s say that, because she was the closest male person to the throne after Henry VI and his son (as she would’ve been!), let’s say Henry VI makes her marry his half-sister, girl!Edmund and have an heir of her own. That could not have happened before she was 14 (the male age of consent), in 1457. Now, St Albans had happened back in 1455, the Duke of York had been forgiven for the battle and the blame placed on Edmund Beaufort. Well, it’s probable male!Margaret would have been called into the camp of Queen Margaret and her cousin Henry Beaufort. Let’s say she makes an effort to make his wife, girl!Edmund pregnant while still 14 or at least during the period 1457-1461 before Tewkesbury. When she goes into exile after Towton, or is killed during it, she would have had a son, Henry (in this case, Beaufort).

Well, I think Henry would have been in an even better place to claim the throne after the deaths of Henry VI, prince Edward, and more likely than not, his father male!Margaret. Even if his cousins Henry, Edmund or John Beaufort (the sons of Edmund) had survived, Henry would have been indisputably the most senior member of the Beaufort line, and with the main branch of the Lancastrian line wiped out, the path would have been his to take. Now, what about his Welsh support? Would have he still had it even if Edmund Tudor was a girl?

That would depend a lot on his uncle Jasper, as it did back then. Henry was relatively unknown, but Jasper had slowly over the years built a support base in Wales. So if Henry had gone to exile with his uncle, it’s likely Jasper would have still gathered support for Henry. The difference now lies in England: Henry would have been able to gather support not as the Earl of Richmond, but as the Duke of Somerset, styling himself as such after what would have been his father’s likely death sometime during the period 1461-1471.

To summarise, it is very very likely that male!Margaret would not have survived under Edward IV. If she wasn’t in charge of the Lancastrian army in Towton, she would have been in Tewkesbury, and we all know how that went. For Henry VII, things don’t change as much, except for the better, perhaps. It’s my opinion that Margaret Beaufort survived Edward IV’s regime not only because she was a woman, but because she made clever alliances with Edward’s supporters through her marriages: first with Henry Stafford (who against all odds supported Edward) and then with Thomas Stanley.

There is, of course, the slight chance that male!Margaret survives Tewkesbury. In that case, she could have claimed the crown for herself and yes, perhaps with Jasper’s influence, gathered an army of supporters in Wales. But I think those chances are small given the likely place of prominence she would have been given in Tewkesbury in regards to the Lancastrian army.

I hope I answered your question? Do let me know! 🌹x

[machineofreality]

Imagine a world of fish

Imagine a world of fish

211108 Welcome to a world where we can guess what you are doing at any moment of any day. Right now, we guess you might be reading this. Or maybe you’re going to the shops to buy cigarettes and mints. Or maybe you’re on your way to your mother’s house. Thinking about it now, this hypothetical world isn’t actually any different to the one we’re in right now. Let’s try another…

View On WordPress

[kotorswtor]

I’ve been reading Victoria’s Zen at War in my spare time, with half an eye toward grounding some of the execrable political/religious decisions that various Star Wars factions make in historical events

This is a gross oversimplification, but the philosophical trends that ended in Japanese Buddhist clergy advocating/participating in the worst excesses of WWII cropped up about a hundred years prior. The shogunate turned practical power over to the Emperor, and for a number of reasons that included state resource consolidation and continuing resistance to colonization by Western Christian powers, Japan began a round of examining and ultimately suppressing or regulating into non-existence any institution that wasn’t adjudged to be sufficiently, truly Japanese.

Buddhism, an Indian export by way of China and Korea, was the target of a number of those reforms. The state disrupted the millennia-long coexistence of Buddhist and native Shinto religious practices, communities, and sites, dissolved monasteries and shrines, destroyed or sold a lot of religious art and artifacts, and conscripted the clergy to serve in the military or teach in state-run, predominately Shinto schools. Those strictures were gradually relaxed as the Meiji era wore on, but there was always the implicit threat that Japanese Buddhism must either uphold and evangelize for the state as its first priority or be relegated to obscurity. That threat fueled, among other things, increasingly unified, strident assertions in every medium that wars of conquest (and the structural violence required to wage them) were totally compatible with Buddhist teachings on compassion, selflessness, and non-violence.

I’ve characterized the Jedi Order’s major point of failure as “religious organization traditionally obligated to uphold a secular state with competing interests/agenda.” Do we want to bet on some similar social/policy pressure in the SWTOR era, especially given that the Jedi are supposed to have taken a major hit in prestige after the Sacking?