Alternate history of cities

[ThePhun1]

Originally Posted by JManc

I think the population centers of Houston-Galveston would have been flipped had it not been the 1900 hurricane.

Not flipped but more evenly distributed, with Galveston being the primary city. That said, hurricanes in general would have to be rare, non-existent or less powerful. As it stands, Galveston is doomed by its geology and geography. The only reason it still exist as anything more than a giant sandbar is because of engineering and people's will to live there. The same can be said of New Orleans, minus the sandbar part. Dare I say it would be a swamp or marsh without human intervention?

[austlar1]

Originally Posted by ThePhun1

Not flipped but more evenly distributed, with Galveston being the primary city. That said, hurricanes in general would have to be rare, non-existent or less powerful. As it stands, Galveston is doomed by its geology and geography. The only reason it still exist as anything more than a giant sandbar is because of engineering and people's will to live there. The same can be said of New Orleans, minus the sandbar part. Dare I say it would be a swamp or marsh without human intervention?

Houston already had a larger population than Galveston pre-hurricane. In 1900 Houston had 44,000 residents and Galveston had 36,000. In 1890 both Houston and Galveston had about 27,000 people. Houston was achieving dominance well prior to the 1906 hurricane. After Oil was discovered in 1901, Houston started to explode in population. I don't think Galveston would have cashed in particularly from Spindletop and other major oil discoveries, including a huge discovery just to the west of Houston circa 1910.

[ThePhun1]

Originally Posted by austlar1

Houston already had a larger population than Galveston pre-hurricane. In 1900 Houston had 44,000 residents and Galveston had 36,000. In 1890 both Houston and Galveston had about 27,000 people. Houston was achieving dominance well prior to the 1906 hurricane. After Oil was discovered in 1901, Houston started to explode in population. I don't think Galveston would have cashed in particularly from Spindletop and other major oil discoveries, including a huge discovery just to the west of Houston circa 1910.

It had a larger population but Galveston was clearly more favored. Cities grew by leaps and bounds back then, so it wouldn't have been a big deal for Galveston to pass Houston. Chicago grew by 2 million in forty years at that time and Houston itself added 1 million or so in only 60 years.

[volguus zildrohar]

Originally Posted by skyscraper

Philly was the second-largest English speaking city in the world until the early 1800s. Had the early United States decided to keep the capital in Philadelphia instead of spending their precious resources on building a capital city in a Maryland/Virginia swamp, it would still be. We could have taken our place on the world stage with an already-established major city as the capital, and not gotten off on a debt-laden beginning, or at least not as deep a debt. We could have paid off the Revolutionary War debts much sooner and been on more solid financial footing from the beginning. I understand why they moved the capital, it was a concession to the south who was already starting to make noise about the way the republic was favoring the north, and that they wanted to decentralize and diffuse power. But we saw how that concession staved of the Civil War (it didn't), so in hindsight, if we had just kept the capital here, Philadelphia would probably still be today what it was in the early colonial days - the seat of government, financial capital, media capital, cultural capital, and probably industrial capital as well (as it was until the depression). New York has a more favorable geography for immigration, with its natural harbor. But if Philadelphia had maintained its status, nyc would have just been a stepping stone for people coming to live and work in Philadelphia.

New York's deep natural harbor is one of the best anywhere in the world and the primary catalyst that created the city it is today.

Keeping the capital in Philadelphia or any number of other events that could have occured over the centuries would have certainly done much to help bolster Philadelphia's reputation but would have had little if any effect on what happened in New York. That city is a self-sustaining economic reactor that is far too diversified to be as susceptible to the effects of deindustrialization as our fair city and many others across the country.

[scalziand]

Originally Posted by eschaton

As a transplant to Pittsburgh, I have been fascinated at the late 18th/early 19th competing land claims of Virginia and Pennsylvania in the area.

Essentially Virginia claimed much of what is now Southwestern Pennsylvania, up to the Allegheny and Ohio rivers. Here's a rough map showing what was claimed at that time.



Pennsylvania ultimately won the land claim, which is why Virginia (and eventually West Virginia) was left with the little northern panhandle instead of the more extensive western land claims it ultimately ended up with.

What if Virginia won out instead? The early settlement presumably wouldn't have been too much different, because the same mixture of Scotch-Irish and Germans would have moved into the region. The central city would likely still be called Pittsburgh, and have roughly the same geography, due to topographic constraints. Presumably the added population in the antebellum era wouldn't be enough to cause Virginia as a whole not to secede during the Civil War, meaning Pittsburgh would become the major urban area of West Virginia. In some ways West Virginia would become analogous to Missouri, with one major rust belt metro anchoring a state which otherwise was largely rural.

Ever since I found out, I've been kind of boggled that Connecticut also had claim to parts of Pennsylvania and Ohio in Westmoreland County and the Western Reserve, as the original colonial charter extended all the way to the Pacific Ocean. Cleveland was settled as a Connecticut city town originally, although it hadn't grown very much by the time Connecticut relinquished its claim.

[montréaliste]

Originally Posted by Centropolis

you can then circle back around to montreal as the continental seat of a far older power structure (at least of what is today canada and the heart of the present day united states).



montreal beget new orleans, new orleans beget st. louis, st. louis beget what is today kansas city (by st. louis creoles believe it or not).

Yes, and while thou art at it: may as well add beget Chicago, beget Detroit and a string of outposts in the Ohio valley. This at a time when the English colonials feared venturing West of the Appalachians.

[McBane]

Originally Posted by skyscraper

Philly was the second-largest English speaking city in the world until the early 1800s. Had the early United States decided to keep the capital in Philadelphia instead of spending their precious resources on building a capital city in a Maryland/Virginia swamp, it would still be. We could have taken our place on the world stage with an already-established major city as the capital, and not gotten off on a debt-laden beginning, or at least not as deep a debt. We could have paid off the Revolutionary War debts much sooner and been on more solid financial footing from the beginning. I understand why they moved the capital, it was a concession to the south who was already starting to make noise about the way the republic was favoring the north, and that they wanted to decentralize and diffuse power. But we saw how that concession staved of the Civil War (it didn't), so in hindsight, if we had just kept the capital here, Philadelphia would probably still be today what it was in the early colonial days - the seat of government, financial capital, media capital, cultural capital, and probably industrial capital as well (as it was until the depression). New York has a more favorable geography for immigration, with its natural harbor. But if Philadelphia had maintained its status, nyc would have just been a stepping stone for people coming to live and work in Philadelphia.

Interesting although one must put a huge asterisk next to colonial era population figures. Both Philadelphia AND NYC were not yet unified. So when it is said that Phila was the largest city, neighborhoods very close to today's Center City (like Northern Liberties and Southwark) were separate cities. Same goes for NYC, which did not include Brooklyn, which may have been the third largest city at some point. Combined, I believe Manhattan and Brooklyn would have been larger than Philadelphia and its adjoining towns.

[muppet]

History could have HUGELY been rewritten on at least two or three occasions, when for most of recorded history the countries with the biggest populations held the most power - India and China of course, that were the richest powers for the past 3000 years, with the world's largest, most cosmopolitan cities, but being usurped in the past 150. This of course is being rebalanced, with India and China now rising back to top in our generation.

China had the opportunity for global domination back in the Dark ages (10th-11th century), which was then the golden age of the Song Dynasty, embarking on the first Industrial Revolution (a nationwide network of blast furnaces churning out standardisation and iron in amounts that wouldn't be bettered until Britain's Industrial Revolution in the mid 19th Century), coupled with numerous inventions such as the printing press and compass that disseminated information, plus the set up of a financial economy rather than an agrarian one. Cities grew huge, Xian, Nanjing, Kaifeng surpassing 1 million, Hangzhou to 2 million.

Of course the Mongolians laid waste to all that (killing so many millions the carbon in the atmosphere fell), then climate change.

China's second opportunity was in 1405, when it launched its vast fleets against Indian domination, in the world's largest pre-industrial ships (verified at up to 600ft long after the British discovery in 2015 of the Longjiang shipyards, showing they were seaworthy being lined with concrete hulls), some of the world's largest 'cities' manned by 23,000 sailors, that set up vassal states and trading colonies across the Pacific and Indian Oceans. From Africa to Australia to Antarctica (and according to discredited historian, Gavin Menzies, North America, due to Chinese DNA and artefacts found there, but denied by Chinese Naval History Museum - as to discover somewhere you have to come back).






However 50 years later (just when the Portuguese first started to sail), the vast fleets were burned as once again, the Mongols threatened and China turned isolationist, diverting its funds into defence, and making it a capital punishment to go to sea in any ship.


The third opportunity was of course gunpowder, long used for millennia as weaponry. In fact the world's first modern warfare played out in the Mongol-Chinese attempted invasions of Japan in 1274, with up to 140,000 troops on 4,400 ships, complete with destroyers and galleons bristling with cannons, the first guns (fire-lances), torpedoes, missiles, mines, bombs, rocket launchers and grenades. However when they ran into the seasonal typhoons (aka kamikaze - divine wind), it became the worlds largest ship graveyard.






By the 1500s Japan had inherited the world's most advanced weaponry, having conquested Korea with them too.







However society (as in China) had become so unruly and dangerous with gunpowder they made the decision to bury the technology arms race, and revert back to the art of the samurai blade, embarking on the following 300 years of isolationism and feudalism, despite holding the world's largest cities. Likewise China went to become the Ming Dynasty, a revertion in the arms race but a flowering of the arts and culture.


In short Asia could have dominated (not to mention the Mongols sparing Western Europe in 1241 after turning back from Vienna, following the death of the Great Khan Genghis back in Mongolia.)

[ThePhun1]

Originally Posted by McBane

Interesting although one must put a huge asterisk next to colonial era population figures. Both Philadelphia AND NYC were not yet unified. So when it is said that Phila was the largest city, neighborhoods very close to today's Center City (like Northern Liberties and Southwark) were separate cities. Same goes for NYC, which did not include Brooklyn, which may have been the third largest city at some point. Combined, I believe Manhattan and Brooklyn would have been larger than Philadelphia and its adjoining towns.

Philadelphia as a whole was bigger than NYC as a whole in 1790, 54k-49k. I would go back and count more decades but I'm too tired. Just know that NYC and even Manhattan alone overtook all of Philadelphia in the first half of the 19th century. Manhattan has generally stayed bigger than all of Philadelphia except for a few decades here and there.

[eschaton]

Originally Posted by ThePhun1

Philadelphia as a whole was bigger than NYC as a whole in 1790, 54k-49k. I would go back and count more decades but I'm too tired. Just know that NYC and even Manhattan alone overtook all of Philadelphia in the first half of the 19th century. Manhattan has generally stayed bigger than all of Philadelphia except for a few decades here and there.

IIRC the tremendous growth in the early 19th century is generally attributed to the Erie Canal. Hence if you destroyed the political preconditions for it (say by having the Great Lakes littoral owned by a hostile foreign power) you would get a much smaller NYC.

[Pavlov's Dog]

Originally Posted by eschaton

IIRC the tremendous growth in the early 19th century is generally attributed to the Erie Canal. Hence if you destroyed the political preconditions for it (say by having the Great Lakes littoral owned by a hostile foreign power) you would get a much smaller NYC.

I often wonder how different the world might have been had Napoleon chosen not to continue expanding eastward in Europe and into Iberia but instead taking firm control of the Mediterranean together with Spain. His navy never did get strong enough to challenge the British but with Italy all but conquered he could have probably taken over and colonized North Africa and Spain could have retaken Gibraltar. France could have remained a world power rather than losing it all.

With France and the UK in a perpetual state of tension would the industrial revolution gone so quickly? If the industrial revolution were slowed down would more of the world had time to catch up? Would the massive number of slaves still been imported to the US without the massive increase in cotton production after the war of 1812? Would India have maintained more independence if GB weren't so strong and instead preoccupied with France. Would the Qing dynasty have adjusted strategy and survived?

Imagine a North America in 1810 where France still has the Louisiana Territory and is actively colonizing it to prevent expansion by Great Britain. Would GB do even more to assist its Native American allies and hold the US mostly to the East of the Appalachians? Might a Native American nation exist today in Wisconsin, Minnesota and the upper plains? The current US West of the Mississippi was vary scarcely inhabited and even Spain's settlements were sparse.

[dc_denizen]

Originally Posted by muppet

History could have HUGELY been rewritten on at least two or three occasions, when for most of recorded history the countries with the biggest populations held the most power - India and China of course, that were the richest powers for the past 3000 years, with the world's largest, most cosmopolitan cities, but being usurped in the past 150. This of course is being rebalanced, with India and China now rising back to top in our generation.

You forgot about ancient Greece, Rome, Persia and the Islamic world. It's very difficult to measure historical economic size, but Rome and the Hellenistic world more technologically advanced and at least as wealthy and populous as China and India, with massive cosmopolitan cities. Same with the later Islamic world centered on Baghdad.

The most power tends to go to the society with the most advanced science and technology, not the most people and/or primary sources of wealth (which in the case of India was mostly about the valuable spices and fertile land in that region of the world; Indian technology was backward).

The west beat china and India for the past 500 years because Darwin, Euler, Gauss, Spinoza, Descartes, Newton, Maxwell, the imperial German scientists and technological pioneers, Tesla, Edison, Einstein, von Neumann etc were produced by Western countries, and not by China and India. In the last 40 years, China and India (having failed to produce those amazing scientists and pioneers and the technological improvements they gave us) have finally gained access to the many benefits of 500 years of western progress. I think they owe us a thank you

[muppet]

I was just talking purely economic terms - as mentioned before China had that lovely habit of wiping the slate clean, often including technology sometimes with every regime change (last seen in the Cultural Revolution of the 1960s), despite its rich tradition of inventions. For example it had the worlds first modern, mechanised warfare by the 1270s, but had reverted to feudalist warfare by the 1400s-1600s. It had the world's largest ever fleets and sailing ships, circumnavigating much of the globe to set up trading colonies in the early 1400s, but burned the lot in their docks by 1450. It had its Industrial Revolution on a par with Britain's in the 10th Century, but had lost it all a century later (Mongol invasion and climate change that killed off the Song), and still had medieval rural lives well into the 20th Century. It was often democratic and gender equal in many periods, falling back to hierarchy in the next (though it did also function as a meritocracy throughout, hence the large amount of inventions).

The destructive process renews the culture (ensuring it's been the longest lasting civilisation), but does put in a hell of a lot of wrecking ball to do it. Confucianism has a lot to answer for also, the strong impetus for harmonisation in society ensures peace - but also courts stagnation - as seen in the fall of several dynasties to outsiders from the Mongols to Manchus to Japanese, China has spent a third of its history in subjugation despite all its size and riches, and also lost its Industrial Revolution, and its huge but short-lived expansionist/ colonialist period to the whims of history also.

Interesting to note, there is one absurd fact that has crippled China as an empire from day one. The fact it has low potassium levels in its soil, meaning weaker horses. This meant that although China had expanded as far as territorially convenient (its lands ending in the impenetrable border of mountains, desert, steppe and sea on its distant sides), it was always prey to the cavalries of the tribes that lived beyond the pale - Mongols, Jurchens, Manchus and even Tibetans, whose horses were sturdier and could be used much better in war. Constant conflict with these forces, notably being the direct neighbour of the world dominating Mongols, wrecked China's golden ages, of enlightenment (1610s), exploration (1450s) and industry (1080s) almost every time. The lack of a continuity cycle, and technological continuity after the regime changes are however, entirely the Chinese fault.

In terms of economy though China and India naturally offset their stagnation with size. For example when Britain won in the Opium Wars, China was opportunistically on its knees having just gone through the world's worst civil war (levelling 700 cities), and had been in economic recession for 50 years, and lauded over by a corrupted court (that sold off 6 of its state of the art warships to build a bejewelled palace) - though was still 90% larger an economy than Britain. Although the West couldn't completely take over they won their Treaty Ports.

Also don't forget at the same time the West was rising, China was spending almost 200 years in a constant state of war and revolution - the Mongols, the Tibetans, the Russians, the Uighurs, the Christians, the Boxers, the southern Chinese, the Eastern Chinese, the warlord states, the Japanese, the British, French and Americans, the Nationalists, the Communists, the Red Guards, with over 150 million killed (which is why there's a glaring lack of buildings or any new styles from 1700-1900). The 19th Century period also saw China at its largest extent, but also under foreign Manchurian rule - thus it's most subjugated.

Population - note the change in 1820. The biggest of the forces of change in that period would be the Taiping Rebellion, the world's second bloodiest war, and an attempt by Han Chinese to wrest back control from the Manchurians, and the start of 120 years of Han Chinese wars:



GDP - change in 1820:

[SunDevil]

Not as big of a topic as has been discussed, but, my home town of Bismarck, ND was offered a choice between the state prison and the new State Land Grant College (which became North Dakota State University). Bismarck chose the prison because of jobs and in the late 1800's higher education was small time. I imagine that Bismarck would be a much different place if it had a "major" university as well as being the state capitol.

[ThePhun1]

Meanwhile, Fargo should petition to become part of Minnesota.

[jd3189]

I've mentioned this in another thread before, but if the US was more invested in the Caribbean and Latin America in general earlier, what would that mean for the South? I always would think that this would have made Florida a bit more important with its port cities. Miami or Tampa would have grown much sooner if Havana and other Caribbean cities developed a better trade network that rivaled the ones existing in the Mediterranean and Indian Ocean

[ThePhun1]

Heck, what if the US had been able to annex or stay close friends with Cuba? Would it be a state or part of Florida?

[Centropolis]

interesting question. perhaps by the time we were in a position to take the caribbean the economic impetus to do so had already passed. in an earlier era it would have meant war with european powers for some tiny islands with the exception of cuba and hispaniola. of course we did have a war with spain and had cuba but there must have been some kind of financial reason why we didnt annex cuba. geographically it might have made some sense.

i believe there were multiple...movements by the united states to take (and keep) cuba, though over many years.

[PhilliesPhan]

Four alternate historical points about Philly:

1.) What if yellow fever would have never struck the city in 1793? We were bound to lose our title as seat of the federal government, but we could have very well remained the capitol of PA. The capitol was mainly moved to Harrisburg due to the outbreak.

2.) What if the money the city spent on the Ben Franklin Parkway would have been put towards its originally intended use: to build a more robust subway system? With one look at A. Merritt Taylor's 1913 comprehensive plan, it is easy to assume that Philly would have the 2nd best subway system in the country.

3.) What if National City Lines would have never dismantled the surface trolley network across the city?

4.) What if the 1964 Columbia Avenue Riots would have never happened? So many people ended up moving away from the city, and so many real estate deals ended up falling through due to the aftermath of the riots. Would North Philly have fallen as hard as it did?

[lio45]

Originally Posted by PhilliesPhan

1.) What if yellow fever would have never struck the city in 1793? We were bound to lose our title as seat of the federal government, but we could have very well remained the capitol of PA. The capitol was mainly moved to Harrisburg due to the outbreak.

Not sure about that - such an excentric location has historically proven to be a nearly infallible dealbreaker for either becoming, or standing the test of time as, a state capital. In many cases, lesser cities were selected due to their more central locations.

(Ironically, just after writing this, I realized the city of Cheyenne, WY is pretty much exactly located where Philly is in relation to its state. Though that works only because Wyoming is pretty empty...)