Seeking suggestions/critique on my alternate history setting in the American South

[TheKoalaNxtDoor]

So, I've had this idea for a world that I would use for an RPG setting with an alternative historical timeline than our own, which also includes an alternative science system. The setting mostly revolves around a heightened southern aristocracy and a revival of feudalism, with the inclusion of sort of "pseudoscience wizards." Below is most of what I have right now, though I am always brainstorming. I'm looking for suggestions on how to expand and flesh out this idea, and would welcome any constructive criticism on how to make the setting more believable (without throwing out the core concept of course.) Please let me know what you think!
My nameless alternate history setting

The Premise
In this world, the southern colonies of the United States had a far more pronounced aristocratic vibe from their founding. The prominent plantation families were essentially dukes and high lords, holding sway over smaller counts that they had provided land to. Codes of chivalry and honor and feudalism were revived. Fine southern gentlemen would train as knights, wielding sabre and carbine on horseback and would swear allegiance to their lords. There are also small dragons in the Appalachian Mountains and much larger ones out in the Great Plains and Rocky Mountains.


The Historical Shift
The thirteen colonies all still band together to gain their independence from the British and succeed. However, the articles of confederation are far more popular to the southern states in this world, with the most prominent plantation families of the south easily sweeping up positions as governors and maneuvering their vassal equivalents into other government positions. When the second constitution was drafted, various efforts were made to suppress the more independent-minded, aristocratic southern states. The great compromise and the 3/5ths compromise were not reached, leaving the southern states unenthusiastic members of the new government.


John Adams the Dictator
George Washington is elected unanimously as president, but in his second term while leading a force to quell the whiskey rebellion, a chance shot in a brief confrontation between the forces hit and killed him. John Adams was sworn in as president, and re-styled the title back to his original, grandiose suggestion of "His High Mightiness, the President of the United States and Protector of their Liberties," and demanded to be addressed as his majesty. He was re-elected in 1796 and built up the navy and army in preparation for conflicts with France. With Washington dead, as opposed to normal history, Hamilton is not in charge of the military and Adams heads it instead, vigorously ensuring loyalty of all of the soldiers. Because of the lack of a 3/5ths compromise, Jefferson loses the 1800 presidential election, to the dismay of the south. With the lack of a 2-term precedent set by Washington, Adams continues to run and win the presidency with increasing suspicion until 1812. Many cry that the elections are rigged, but Adams holds the loyalty of the military he created and nothing is done about it.


The War of 1812
When the war of 1812 broke out, cries accusing Adams of being a tyrant were at their all-time high. The southern states of Virginia, Kentucky, Tennessee, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia and Louisiana all desired independence from Adam’s dictatorship. Virginia and Georgia received military aid from Britain, while North and South Carolina received aid from the French. In the course of the war, Adams was disposed, the southern states all gained independence and the British took control of the Illinois, Indiana and Michigan territories, incorporating them into Canada. With their new-found independence, the highly aristocratic southern states all saw the most prominent plantation houses that had led the war effort declare themselves kings of their independent states. Virginia, Georgia and the Carolinas were heavily indebted to their European supporters, but were the most prosperous kingdoms. Tennessee, Kentucky and Louisiana styled themselves as “Free Kings” of the south, due to their lack of debts. However, Kentucky and Tennessee were extremely poor kingdoms and Louisiana was territorially relegated to a city-state, albeit a prosperous one.


The Kingdom of Carolina
After the defeat of Napoleon in 1815, French support for North and South Carolina came into question. North Carolina fiercely supported Napoleon, while South Carolina threw its support behind the reinstated Bourbons. With Napoleon’s supporters fleeing to North Carolina, British fear of a continued Napoleonic threat heightened, and a pact was made between the Bourbons, South Carolina, and the British and their supported Virginian and Georgian allies to smash North Carolina and its Napoleonic resurgence. North Carolina was crushed by the joint effort, and South Carolina annexed the country, declaring a unified “Kingdom of Carolina,” standing in solidarity with the Bourbon government.


The Indian Kings
The Louisiana Purchase, while still technically owned by the United States Government, was completely cut off from the rest of the country. With the rise of the new southern kingdoms, countless “Indian Kings” arose. These kings were not actually Indians, but largely white settlers who had settled in the lands of the Louisiana Purchase who saw the rise of the new southern kings and began declaring themselves kings of their own farms and nearby land, regardless of whether or not they could make good on the claim. They were called Indian Kings because they were declaring themselves kings of parts of the Louisiana territory, land that was originally going to be set aside for the Native Americans. Most of the Indian Kings are just farmers with delusions of grandeur, but some have risen in prominence and become small warlords west of the Mississippi.


Georgia as a Military State
Georgia had always disputed the loss of its western land with the United States government, and upon its independence it took it upon itself to reincorporate the lands of the Mississippi territory into the Kingdom of Georgia. This led to continuous wars with the Cherokee, the Creek, the Chickasaw and the Choctaw Indians. In addition, Georgia has continuous disputes with Spain over the ownership of West Florida and both constantly raid back and forth along the Florida border. This has led to a highly militarized Georgian culture.


Louisiana as a City State
Due to a lack of influence outside of trade and no support from foreign nations, Louisiana has been relegated to a City-State of New Orleans. Border disputes with Spain in previous years had already led to the creation of a neutral ground in western Louisiana where neither government would send troops or settlers. This land has developed into the Sabine Free State, a small haven for organized bandits, criminals and political refugees. Military pressure from Spain and Georgia to the east limits control there, and prominent Indian Kings have been encroaching on the northern boundaries of the Kingdom.


The Free Appalachian Republic
Lacking any cultural connection to the feudal, aristocratic south, the areas of north-western Carolina, eastern Tennessee and western Virginia have been organizing to create a democratic, independent country in the Appalachian Mountains. Unwilling to give up the territory, the kingdoms of Carolina, Virginia and Tennessee all make efforts to squash the revolutionary forces, who have resorted to guerilla warfare in the mountains.


Re-establishment of the African Slave Trade
With their new-found independence, the costal southern kingdoms have all re-instated the African slave trade, largely for the purpose of supplementing the southern knightly military with a janissary-like slave soldier army. These newly-captured African slaves are kept culturally and linguistically separate from laboring American slaves.


Natural Philosophers
As well as alternate history, this setting contains alternate science. In this world, a large number of sciences we now consider pseudosciences work to drastic effect. These include Phrenology, Animal Magnetism/Mesmerism, Spontaneous Generation and Luminiferous and Gravitational Aether. The world essentially has “Science wizards,” who can use the above fields of study to do incredible things. Phrenologists can manipulate the growths and bumps in people’s brains (temporarily with deft messages and magnets, or permanently with surgery) to increase or decrease certain mental and behavioral traits, as well as get vague mind readings by “feeling” which areas of the brain are receiving more blood and working harder. The better the phrenologist, the more specific the information. Phrenologists can also examine skulls of deceased persons to figure out their most prominent traits and sometimes determine their last thoughts before death. Animal Magnetists or Mesmerizers can use their abilities to rapidly heal people or trigger a “crisis” to give themselves or others x-ray vision, or to control minds and brainwash people. Followers of the Spontaneous Generation theory, or Primordiologists, use age-old studies of Aristotle and more recent research of Jan Baptist van Helmont to summon creatures like scorpions and snakes to their aid. Some are even incorporating the ideas of Jean-Baptiste Lamarck and his theory of the transmutation of species to create far more unique and fearsome creatures by manipulating their environment and innate nervous fluid. Aetheriticians are those who study the fifth classical element, the Aether, a substance which fills all empty space and acts as a medium for the travel of light waves and conducts the forces of gravity. Aetheriticians can manipulate this medium in a variety of ways to conduct bolts of light, create pockets of darkness, and strengthen, lessen or change the direction of gravitational pulls.


Public and Religious Opinion on Natural Philosophers
Phrenology is highly popular in areas of high British influence, such as Virginia and Georgia due to the popular British support for the idea. In the Kingdom of Carolina however, Phrenology is mostly disregarded and condemned, seen as a hoax due to the French influence. In the southern kingdoms, Phrenology is often used in the context of scientific racism to validate slavery and the inferiority of blacks. This support comes from a select few biased and flawed studies conducted by celebrated southern phrenologists, while all contrary studies are ignored and swept under the rug. In fact, a renegade group of abolitionist phrenologists operates throughout much of the south to support runaways and slave uprisings. From the view of the Church, Phrenology is seen as atheistic and is condemned. Contrary to Phrenology, Animal Magnetism is celebrated in Carolina and strictly prohibited in Virginia and Georgia, where there is mass hysteria that the “Mesmerists” are trying to infiltrate the governments and control the populace as well as steal their women. The religious view of animal magnetism is divided. Some animal magnetists insist that their science is a spiritual one, grounded in the belief of God. Certain religious sects celebrate it and incorporate it in faith healing and prayer, others merely tolerate the “right” kind of magnetists, and others condemn the practice outright, no matter what the natural philosopher in question may insist. Primordiologists are widely accepted all over, their science being an ancient and established one that supports religious conventions. However, the recent studies of Lamarck and transmutation of species is highly controversial. It is condemned by the church and most everyone else outside of a few select circles. Aetheriticians are well-accepted in the scientific community, but its association with Isaac Newton (largely considered a heretic) puts it on shaky grounds in the religious community. Due to the more spectacular effects of the practice, it is also known to cause panics when practiced in public around the lesser educated.

[Yora]

The initial setup is interesting, but what kind of adventures would PCs go on?

[TheKoalaNxtDoor]

Well, I'm trying to follow the Kobold method of world creation, what with plenty of precarious boxes of dynamite stacked up around each other. I'm trying to set up lots of tension and various factions who are opposed to one another that players can work towards or against, such as aiding/fighting the guerilla operations of the F.A.R. (free appalachian republic), working with the rogue abolitionist phrenologists to free slaves, hunt down bandits in the Sabine Free State or curb the efforts of encroaching Indian King warlords. Players might work with hiding Bonapartists in North Carolina to restore the heir to the short-lived throne of the Kingdom of North Carolina and fight for independence. Or they could carry out more general, less faction-specific adventures, like engaging in courtly politics against this or that duke, being gallant southern knights and slaying a dragon terrorizing some portion of the country, or exploring some ancient indian ruin or burial ground.

The setting would use the system rules for deadlands revised classic and I could see a group using this setting in a combat-heavy way or a diplomatic-heavy way. One partial hiccup to a combat-heavy group might be that I don't intend for Natural Philosophers or any other power source users I add in the future to play like DnD wizards. Arcane abilities are more toned down and require planning. Phrenologists have to actually get a hold of someone's head to mess with them (usually requires a willing participate,) Animal Magnetists require long periods of "laying on hands" and eye contact to establish control and Primordiologist's recipees usually take a lot of prep-work and time. Aetheriticians would be the closest to that style of play, with a more short-term, combat-oreinted science, but they wouldn't be throwing fireballs around every turn they had.

[TheKoalaNxtDoor]

Any other questions?

[weaseldust]

I love the flavour of the world, especially the magic system. I'm a fan of alternate histories as settings, and this one's inspired a fair bit of thinking and day-dreaming, hence the length of the following list of questions.

How was it decided which landowner would be king of each state? Are any Southern states not now kingdoms? Did the kings have to subjugate their kingdoms by force? Is there much warfare in general between the various Southern 'dukes' and 'lords'?

I don't see much about what the Northern states are doing after 1812. Are they still experiencing industrialisation? Is the federal government stronger now than in our history? Is it still dominated by the military? (Also, with the South gone, the North might end up with a majority of German speakers. Especially if there is more immigration from Europe. That could be fun.)

It sounds as if neither the US nor the independent Southern states are interested in expanding west. What about Britain/Canada? What about Spain? Could Russia reach Alaska, as in our world, and then expand south?

What happens to the native Americans who were supposed to be living in the Louisiana Purchase? Are there many interactions between native Americans and the states at all? I assume many groups quickly adopt firearms, as in our world; does this change the various native cultures much? Are there any native kingdoms? Republics?

Do the various Spanish colonies in the Americas still win their independence? How do the US and Southern states react? If Mexico becomes independent, does it end up at war with any Southern states?

What is the class system in the Southern states like? Is there a threat of revolution? Is abolitionism common in the South? It might make sense for revolutionaries to make common cause with slaves (though the French revolution didn't help slaves in French colonies much, so maybe not).

I like that you have Britain and France compete for influence in the independent South, but I wonder if it might lead to continued conflict between them. In our world, Britain and France competed for colonies, but mostly peacefully after Napoleon; if parts of North America were still up for grabs, they might be less civil about it, especially if their respective client states come to blows.

Speaking of which, how strong are the various Southern states militarily? It sounds like the Kingdom of Carolina should be fairly powerful. Does the focus on playing knights weaken their military development? Are the dragons militarily useful?

I'll just note that the Royal Navy was at this point committed to ending the slave trade by force. If you want it reinstated, you'll either have to change Britain's attitude or have the states come to some agreement with them.


I don't have as much to say on the 'science that could have been', because you can pretty much make up what you like there. Linking the aether to Newton sounds odd to me because he rejected the wave-theory of light (I think he contemplated an explanation of gravity in terms of fluids, but he never came down on a side as to what explained the law of gravitation). I'm not sure if Newton was known to be a heretic at that time either; as far as I know, Newton's work was mostly thought to support theism. Of course, in your world it could be different.

I seem to remember the religious significance of spontaneous generation actually being controversial. Of course, it was thought to be common knowledge for a long time, so of course for that period it was considered compatible with theism, but you can see how it sort of steps on the Creator's toes a bit if life can arise from inanimate matter and does so all the time. That just makes things more interesting though. It's also kind of funny to think that, while phrenology really was a pseudo-science, and mesmerism wasn't even that, just an extended scam, spontaneous generation was a serious scientific hypothesis for a long while and even seemingly had decent evidence on its side a couple of times.

Maybe being able to control spontaneous generation would let you grow massive cotton crops straight from manure? Or at least let you make loads of fish to eat?

If you want to make it a bit darker, you could use the fact that, while mammals were known to come from other mammals in the obvious way, rather than from base matter like flies and so on, it was speculated that mammals embryos were really generated in the same way as flies, just from the matter of the womb instead. So, if you had power over spontaneous generation and access to, say, a cow's womb, you could maybe make things other than cows with it. Or worse, you could use a human womb instead. You could bring in the theory of recapitulation as well - if the human foetus goes through fish-like forms, lizard-like forms, ape-like forms, etc., then maybe if you interfered at the right time you could e.g. have the foetus fail to advance beyond the fish-like stage but continue growing, so it came out as a baby fish-person. I mean, your mad scientists have to be all the madder when your science is already half-mad.

I'm not sure if the other alternate sciences would be as useful. Phrenology and mesmerism would affect the legal system a great deal. You can just read someone's mind to see if they committed the murder, or maybe to see if they will commit one in the future, but then you have to ask whether they had been mesmerised to do it. Can the aetherists control gravity to such an extent as to allow the construction of aircraft? If so, are we talking raft-sized or flying castles? Air navies? Can they make lasers?

You could also introduce the fluid theory of electricity. And caloric fluid. Then your science wizards could zap each other or set each other on fire.

[TheKoalaNxtDoor]

Thank you so much for the feedback! I bolded my responses to try and address everything I could!


I love the flavour of the world, especially the magic system. I'm a fan of alternate histories as settings, and this one's inspired a fair bit of thinking and day-dreaming, hence the length of the following list of questions.

How was it decided which landowner would be king of each state? Are any Southern states not now kingdoms? Did the kings have to subjugate their kingdoms by force? Is there much warfare in general between the various Southern 'dukes' and 'lords'?

Good questions that I do not yet know the answers to! For the king decisions, I mostly imagined that the political system while democratic was still wrapped up in the pockets of the wealthiest aristocrats and the title of king for most states transitioned from the state governor, but there could be exceptions. The kings in most cases did have to subjugate dessenters to establish their kingdoms, but that was for the most part putting down others who wanted to be king instead with only a minority actually opposing monarchy as a rule. In the british and french-supported kingdoms, the current kings are whichever governors and senators that were the most willing to act in their supporting country's interest.
The Free Kingdoms are slightly different. For the City-State of New Orleans, I had the idea that rulership of the state was granted almost unanimously to some highly-beloved, extremely influential individual (perhaps make him a prince? I like the sound of "The Principality of New Orleans."). Tennessee I recently had a crazy idea of the state population, government and culture in general to be opposed to monarchy, but Andrew Jackson fixates on the concept of being king and brutally takes power and rules as a despot over the state. Kentucky found itself stuck as a border state between the USA, the recent expansion of British Canada in the midwest,, raids from Indian tribes and Indian Kings out in the far west and a power-hungry Jackson to the south. Faced with the prospect of being a battleground, the populace elected a king and mantains a fierce, nationalistic pride that borders on xenophobia.

I don't see much about what the Northern states are doing after 1812. Are they still experiencing industrialisation? Is the federal government stronger now than in our history? Is it still dominated by the military? (Also, with the South gone, the North might end up with a majority of German speakers. Especially if there is more immigration from Europe. That could be fun.)

There isn't a lot mentioned about the north after 1812 mostly because my main focus for this setting was on the south, so currently the USA is on the back burner. I do imagine it being still in cycles of military-backed dictatorships. I did have an idea about Aaron Burr being named an enemy of the state after killing Alexander Hamilton in their duel and fleeing out west and then to europe, until to return in 1812 to lead a coup against John Adams (all of which he did in real life, except he returned to practice law, not lead coups) and become the new dictator of the USA. I like your ideas about a higher german presence as well!

It sounds as if neither the US nor the independent Southern states are interested in expanding west. What about Britain/Canada? What about Spain? Could Russia reach Alaska, as in our world, and then expand south?

Again, most of the western north american continent is also on the back burner due to my southern focus for the setting. I definately see Mexico gaining its independence and being an empire and expanding north only to headbutt a Russia moving south. I also had ideas for a Lone Star Republic that kept its independence... but i'm likely not to focus on them until the south is fleshed out.

What happens to the native Americans who were supposed to be living in the Louisiana Purchase? Are there many interactions between native Americans and the states at all? I assume many groups quickly adopt firearms, as in our world; does this change the various native cultures much? Are there any native kingdoms? Republics?

There are large groups of native americans being supplied by the british battling it out with indian kings (some of whom are supplied by the british as well) in the Louisiana Purchase. I've also thought about a large state of various tribes forming out west of Tennessee, coalescing in the Ozark Plateau that may be gearing up for an attack on Tennessee, begging the question of whether its populace would do better under their rule than Jackson's.

Do the various Spanish colonies in the Americas still win their independence? How do the US and Southern states react? If Mexico becomes independent, does it end up at war with any Southern states?

As I mentioned before, Mexico still forms and may have conflict with the principality of New Orleans, but no wars that I'm thinking of besides the Texas ideas. Spain still has Florida and raids back and forth with Georgia infrequently. Historically, there was an independent country of West Flordia that declared independence from Spain only to be annexed almost immediately by the US. Maybe something could be done with that.

What is the class system in the Southern states like? Is there a threat of revolution? Is abolitionism common in the South? It might make sense for revolutionaries to make common cause with slaves (though the French revolution didn't help slaves in French colonies much, so maybe not).

I imagine the noble class of the south would work extensively with much propoganda to keep poor whites pitted against blacks. Although in some kingdoms upward nobility has diminished (the small farmer's dream of owning enough slaves and land to be part of high society themselves is harder when high society turns into a jealously-guarded hereditary position) its still available in kingdoms like Georgia, which is constantly handing out new titles as it expands (Tennessee is creating new titles as it expands too, but they are mostly given to Jackson's yes-men). Tennessee has plenty of rebellion brewing due to a population that was uninterested in monarchy to begin with, and there is the constant threat of Free Appalachian Republic in Carolina, Virginia and Tennessee.
North Carolina as a whole is also unruly and oppossed to South Carolinian rule, for different reasons in different places. In the Western mountains its the F.A.R. again, while the central piedmont's population shares the same opinion as the population of Tennessee with its resident monarchy. The eastern tidewater portion is also unruly but in an entirely different way. Here, those most oppossed to the current monarchy are the original tidewater aristocracy who want to revive the short-lived Kingdom of North Carolina and establish an aristocratic kingdom of their own.
Virginia doesn't deal with revolutionary sentiments quite as much outside of the F.A.R. in the western portion of the state due to its proximity with the USA. The dictatorship over there is much more prominent in the public eye (partly due to propoganda, but not entirely) and the populace prefers their current king to the tyrant they left.
As for slaves and revolutionaries go, the F.A.R. favors abolition but there aren't many slaves where they operate to begin with. Elsewhere, rebellious lower-class whites don't work with blacks mostly because their rebelliousness has to do with them feeling like they can't achieve their dreams of becoming wealthy planters and owning a ton of slaves themselves someday. There are abolitionists operating in the south in the form of the phrenologist abolitionist group I mentioned prior as well as Quaker cells that operate in secret to run underground railroads, though due to the political situation in the US, most of these "lines" steer towards British Canada in the midwest. Also, in the ranks of the african slave-soldier/jannissary class, there is a vast, wide-reaching conspiracy planning a massive inter-kingdom slave uprising.

I like that you have Britain and France compete for influence in the independent South, but I wonder if it might lead to continued conflict between them. In our world, Britain and France competed for colonies, but mostly peacefully after Napoleon; if parts of North America were still up for grabs, they might be less civil about it, especially if their respective client states come to blows.

I'm not terribly well-researched on this front, so I don't have many ideas here, but I will do some digging and get back to you on it. I definitelly do think that the british and the french will compete heavily with one another through their client states though.

Speaking of which, how strong are the various Southern states militarily? It sounds like the Kingdom of Carolina should be fairly powerful. Does the focus on playing knights weaken their military development? Are the dragons militarily useful?

The Kingdom of Carolina is very large, populate and powerful, but it deals with a whole lot of rebel problems that I described above. It often gets into conflicts with Virginia (wars between the british and french by proxy) which is itself highly populated, but must maintain a watchful eye to the north in case of threats from the US. As stated, the Kingdom of Georgia is heavily military-oriented, so it has a large army, but it has a lot of enemies as well. It trades raids with Spainish Florida to the south, often allies with Virginia in conflicts with Carolina, is fighting a constant war to remove the five civilized tribes and occasionally deals with Tennessee encroaching on its western territories. Tennessee is a warmonger but due to rebel problems, financial problems, Indian problems and a smaller population, it has to be sneaky and opportunistic about it. New Orleans' military is miniscule, mostly composed of a city watch and a decent navy in the gulf and on the river to protect its trade interests, the only thing keeping it afloat. Usually it pays tribute to avoid attacks. Kentucky's military is small, ill-equipt and badly trained, but fanatically patriotic. It is also composed of volunteer and conscripted white soldiers rather than the slave-ranks and knight cavalry of other nations.
As for dragons, the F.A.R. understands the smaller appalachian variety the best and may sometimes fool enemy troops into following bands of guerillas into a dragon's lair before the guerillas hightail it, leaving the troops to deal with a territorial dragon, or attract a dragon to the location of an enemy camp. The massive western variety is mostly the stuff of legend, information about them only trickles back from the widest-ranging explorers, indian tribes and indian kings.

I'll just note that the Royal Navy was at this point committed to ending the slave trade by force. If you want it reinstated, you'll either have to change Britain's attitude or have the states come to some agreement with them.

I plan to either think of a way to change Britain's attitude as you suggest, or have the slavers travel much further abroad to perhaps portugese angola and mozambique to get their slaves. Maybe a combination of the two, with the british allowing some amount of slaves to come out of british south africa to remove troublesome Xhosa and Zulu tribes.


I don't have as much to say on the 'science that could have been', because you can pretty much make up what you like there. Linking the aether to Newton sounds odd to me because he rejected the wave-theory of light (I think he contemplated an explanation of gravity in terms of fluids, but he never came down on a side as to what explained the law of gravitation). I'm not sure if Newton was known to be a heretic at that time either; as far as I know, Newton's work was mostly thought to support theism. Of course, in your world it could be different.

While I had initially found a quote of Newton's that posed the question of an aether that propogated the conduction of light in waves, I did some further research and found that you are right. I'll go back to the drawing board on this one.

I seem to remember the religious significance of spontaneous generation actually being controversial. Of course, it was thought to be common knowledge for a long time, so of course for that period it was considered compatible with theism, but you can see how it sort of steps on the Creator's toes a bit if life can arise from inanimate matter and does so all the time. That just makes things more interesting though. It's also kind of funny to think that, while phrenology really was a pseudo-science, and mesmerism wasn't even that, just an extended scam, spontaneous generation was a serious scientific hypothesis for a long while and even seemingly had decent evidence on its side a couple of times.

For the most part, the church isn't a fan of most all natural philosophy. They've just had longer to get used to spontaneous generation so it's got less recent controversy surronding the initial idea.

Maybe being able to control spontaneous generation would let you grow massive cotton crops straight from manure? Or at least let you make loads of fish to eat?

I like this idea a lot and I'm definitelly implimenting it!

If you want to make it a bit darker, you could use the fact that, while mammals were known to come from other mammals in the obvious way, rather than from base matter like flies and so on, it was speculated that mammals embryos were really generated in the same way as flies, just from the matter of the womb instead. So, if you had power over spontaneous generation and access to, say, a cow's womb, you could maybe make things other than cows with it. Or worse, you could use a human womb instead. You could bring in the theory of recapitulation as well - if the human foetus goes through fish-like forms, lizard-like forms, ape-like forms, etc., then maybe if you interfered at the right time you could e.g. have the foetus fail to advance beyond the fish-like stage but continue growing, so it came out as a baby fish-person. I mean, your mad scientists have to be all the madder when your science is already half-mad.

This is also really, really cool. Stealing this for sure, thank you!

I'm not sure if the other alternate sciences would be as useful. Phrenology and mesmerism would affect the legal system a great deal. You can just read someone's mind to see if they committed the murder, or maybe to see if they will commit one in the future, but then you have to ask whether they had been mesmerised to do it. Can the aetherists control gravity to such an extent as to allow the construction of aircraft? If so, are we talking raft-sized or flying castles? Air navies? Can they make lasers?

I like the idea of legal hiccups being caused by phrenologists and animal magnetists, but I don't know that they would be common in every case. Very vague mind-reading with phrenology is still difficult and only tells you things like "the subject is currently putting a lot of energy into the deception-oriented portion of the brain, so he may be lying!" anything more specific is harder. Plus, in a lot of cases the accused chooses not to testify, so they might not always be able to just call them up and ask "Did you do it?" with a phrenologist feeling your head. There isn't a massive abundance of phrenologists anyway, so not every court room would have one available, and in Carolina they aren't respected or believed. Allegations of mesmerism are all the rage in Virginia and Georgia as well, so while they may have more phrenologists to test with, there's a great counter-defense that's hard to disprove.
The aircraft idea for the Aetheriticians is definitelly a cool one, but I'll have to decide exactly how tech-heavy I want things to get, as well as figure out the mechanics behind how gravity manipulation even works. If it does happen, it'd probably be more along the lines of hot air ballons/blimps/zepplins aided by large teams of Aetheriticians. And yes, lasers are definitelly a thing :smallamused:

You could also introduce the fluid theory of electricity. And caloric fluid. Then your science wizards could zap each other or set each other on fire.

I'm not familiar with the fluid theory, but it sounds very cool! I'll look into it and get back to you on it!



Thank you so much for all your inquiries, it helps a massive amount. I can't tell you how many of the responses I gave you I just figured out by thinking about your question right in that moment. It really gets my creative juices flowing!

[weaseldust]

I'm glad you found my questions helpful. It looks like you're developing a very rich setting with lots of potential for intrigue.

I had two more questions I forgot to ask before. What happens to Washington DC? Is it still the capital of the US even though it's stuck right at the southern border now? (Maybe in 1812 the British went beyond burning parts of it down and simply levelled it to ashes with wizard-lasers, or infested it with monstrous scorpions, or whatever.) And was Adams actually rigging elections, or did it just look that way?

For the Prince of New Orleans, they could invite Lamarck. If in your world he helps develop the use of spontaneous generation to the point that it is basically magic (and he might be a powerful science-wizard himself) then he's the kind of guy you would invite to rule over you. Laplace could also work, except he'd probably be famous for aether-wizardry instead of spontaneous generation. Of course, they're both French, but New Orleans had only recently stopped being French itself. Otherwise, if Jefferson is still alive, they might make him Prince instead.

I really like how most factions have both internal and external enemies, all of whom have plausible and somewhat sympathetic motives. Well, I'll except Jackson from the 'somewhat sympathetic' part, but I love the idea of him as a tyrannical warlord too.

[GorinichSerpant]

I vaguely remember that before the Lewis and Clark Expedition there was some theorising that mammoths might live in the West.

I feel that the dragons should somehow tie into the lore of the Native Americans. Something under the lines of Indians calling them one thing and having one set of legends about those beasts and the Whites calling them dragons and looking at them just like they look at the beasts from Europe. As another option, maybe dragons were for some reason imported to the Americas via the Transatlantic trade, and have become an invasive species destroying ecosystems and eating cattle. The only reasons I can think for a dangerous beast to be brought over, is for someone's personal zoo or so some aristocrat wanted an interesting animal to hunt so he released some dragons into the wild.

I don't see a reason Darwin wouldn't exist in this world. I think that Darwin's Theory of Evolution could still exist, but in a different way. Like the concentrations of matter that gets inside the womb to create a mammal get passed down from generation to generation. This would also mean that something like flies don't evolve while mammals do. Also do germs exist in this world?

[Ravian]

On Dragons. Apparently the Cherokee have legends about the Utenka, a horned serpent creature with crystalline scales that once tried to kill the sun. They were often the target of the Cherokee equivalent of dragon-slayer heroes. Only problem is they were typically considered water serpents living in rivers and lakes. The Piasa of the mississippi region was often described as both flying and reptilian, while the Thuderbirds of the West were also described as being covered with smooth scales, and many have compared them to being reminiscient to the Dragons of Asia in both purpose and appearance. It's possible that if those creatures were seen by Europeans instead of only being described in stories they would make the jump to dragons on their own.

[TheKoalaNxtDoor]

Okay, I've been having a lot of really good ideas and I'm loving all the feedback I'm getting! First off, a few questions answered.

Washington D.C. is destroyed during the War of 1812 and the USA capital returns to Philidelphia. And yes, by the end John Adams was rigging elections.

I did some research on fluid theory and caloric fluid theory and I like them both (especially how single-fluid theory was supported by Benjamin Franklin) but I worry about science-wizards doing lasers and lightning bolts and heat rays and all of those being pretty similair in function, so as a discipline/skill I may find some way to fold it into aether science. Call it all the study of conductive mediums and call practicers conductors or the greek/latin equivilent of conductive medium-ologists.

As for dragons, I may employ a mix of both ideas proposed. Have Native American dragons out and about but have the europeans introduce european dragons to the area during the colonial period perhaps to combat or limit the growth and prescence of the local dragons.

I looked up the mammoth bit on the Lewis and Clark expidetion and I'll definitelly include that!

I'll think about Darwin's stuff, but part of the focus of alternative universe laws and the flip-flopped legitimacy of pseudosciences was to make it a true flip, with totally different theories being true. I'll think about it.

On the subject of New Orleans' prince, I think I found a good candidate. Jean Lafitte, a french privateer/smuggler/pirate that operated around Louisiana that aided Andrew Jackson in the Battle of New Orleans during the War of 1812. Perhaps Lafitte and Jackson worked out a deal together to help one another get into power and be allies once they were.

As for a King of Kentucky chosen initially by the populace, Henry Clay seems like the best candidate. As a Kentucky resident who was increadibly influential in politics (though he would be king in this world before the period where he started running for president) he seems a natural choice.

Also, some other ideas concerning natural philosophy 'magic' and other sources of arcane power. I like the idea of power at a price. I would love to come up with tolls that the different types of natural philosophy could take on the bodies and minds of those who make frequent use of them. For the conductors of fluids and aether, I like the idea of the practicers using their own bodies to conduct and manipulate the mediums they work through and this slowly withers them away or leaves them like living lightning rods or the medium's equivilent. I'll think about consequences for the other sciences as well and I'm open to suggestions! I also have noticed that the time period I'm using has lined up nicely with the Second Great Awakening and I'm toying with the idea of including divine power sources in this world, with real miracle workers. This wouldn't have to just be christians, either. Native American medicine men could have real power, as well as enslaved african witch doctors practicing in secret. There could even be a society of Kabbalah practicers in Charleston due to its high Jewish population.

Keep the feedback coming in guys! I love all the questions, this is helping me figure this all out in a massive way!

[Ravian]

Seeing as how the Aether bit and conductive liquids were often tied to Franklin, it might be that those practices are more common in the remainder of the USA. That could also fit into presenting the USA as an industrializing nation, with the majority of aether tech (like airships) being more common up North.

Jean Lafitte is an interesting but fitting choice for prince of New Orleans, particularly given his relationship with early America. He was infamous among the French before Louisiana became an American state, which explains why the principality is not officially backed by France like the Carolinas are, despite the strong French elements. That said it's curious whether or not Lafitte would rule as a true monarch. Despite his disagreements with the authorities in America, he really admired the nation and no doubt would have been disappointed that it fell apart so quickly. It's possible he might decide to abdicate the throne as time went on in favor of elections. And of course this leaves plenty of of room for all sorts of intrigue, especially with the older French aristocracy in Louisiana who might prefer that this "people's pirate" return to the sea (or the bottom of it) so that the proper French authorities can take back the territory.

[TheTeaMustFlow]

First off, I really like the general idea.

It's not a problem, as such, but this timeline has a very pre-eminent Britain, both in America and the world. British North America looks to be the largest single power in North America on it's own. With the US balkanised and the other European powers beaten or failing (Restoration-era France was a) weak, and b) friendly to Britain, or at least it's kings were, the Spanish colonial empire was collapsing thanks to the devastation of the Napoleonic Wars on the country and its fleet, Russia is being left behind economically, socially and technology, and Germany is not yet a thing). Again, this isn't actually a problem, but it is a thing to note.

Given the lack of a powerful American state, or a Monroe Doctrine, European expansion in the Americas is going to be much more of a thing. Heck, British reconquest of the Thirteen Colonies isn't completely implausible (and preventing it, or helping it happen, could be a good focus for a campaign).

The resurgence of slavery doesn't mesh well with the more feudal and European-looking nature of American society. Europe was always much more anti-slavery than her colonies (virtually every major European power barring Spain had banned slavery in their home country before the US existed), because the existence of a peasant/serf class (if you have peasants, you don't need slaves). Furthermore, religious authorities were much more powerful, and by this time the church was consistently anti-slavery. With a feudal south, and the increased theocratic presence that implies, slavery should be less prominent. Furthermore, by this time, slavery, and particularly the african slave trade, is starting to become obsolete with the industrial revolution, and the adoption of janissary forces seems unlikely given that at the time, the actual janissaries had a) become utterly ineffective as a fighting force against European troops, and b) essentially taken over the Ottoman empire.

Overall, I like the idea, but the slavery aspect just doesn't seem right to me.

[Ravian]

From what I understand it's not a typical feudal system, more like feudalism 2.0 as interpreted by a Southern Aristocracy. Keep in mind that when you get right down to it serfdom was pretty darn similar to slavery. The control wasn't quite as extreme, but a serf typically couldn't leave their land, paid the majority of anything they produced to the landowners, and in some extreme cases (particularly in Russia) couldn't even marry without the land-owner's permission.

In particular I'm not sure that the church would necessarily be as unifying a force in this society. Religion during that period of America was pretty varied, and very little of what you saw included a strong hierarchy like Catholicism enjoyed in Feudal Europe. In the South it was mostly Baptist, who believe that the congregation is essentially autonomous. Actually interesting note was that Southern Baptists and Methodists (the second most common religion in the South at the time) actually formally separated from their Northern brethren in the 1840's due to conflicts over slavery. So while many religious forces were opposed to the system, it was certainly not a sure bet.

Actually it sounds more likely that if there were any overarching religious groups, they might be something like a kingdom establishing or subsuming a denomination for themselves, like the Church of England might do.

Might lead to some conflicts actually, especially in places with British influence. Episcopalians might try to advocate more formal adoption of the Church of England, causing conflict with Baptist and Methodists wanting to preserve their religious independence.

On Janissary. I think the name was only used because of the obvious parallels in using slave regiments. That said there's nothing militarily speaking that prevents the effectiveness of slave regiments in combat other than potential moral factors. The Janissary failed because they eventually became a corrupt, hereditary entrenched force in Ottoman politics that made reform difficult, and eventually led to their abolition. And actually the Janissary only started to get corrupt after the slave-soldier part was removed.

Essentially the Janissary had special privileges and prestige that normal soldiers didn't receive, which made the nobles jealous, since they were technically slaves. So eventually they convinced the Sultans to lift the slave requirement so they could send their sons off the Janissary for prestige and power. Of course this eventually made them another club for nobles who started demanding more privileges including allowing their own children to be Janissary as well. By this point they're more like a special class of noble than a military force that just used their influence to maintain their own power. By that point they were pushovers militarily because they didn't usually know how to fight, but any Sultan that tried to reform the military was deposed (problem when all of your ruler's kids are potential heirs and you have a harem full of wives, it doesn't take long for a faction that doesn't like the ruler to find a brother of his that's more amenable to your desires.)

That's why it took a Sultan hiring European mercenaries to get rid of the Janissary and reorganize the military.

I'm all for a bit of corruption beginning to creep into the southern slave-soldier system, but I'm guessing they're not at the point where they're resisting all military development. They're likely pretty modern for the time period at this point, if not to the extent of more industrialized nations such as the North. (Heck even the Janissary adapted for a while. They used to be elite archers before they started adopting muskets.)