The Alternative History Thread

[Lord Agragax of Lunaxoatl]

Hello again Lizards!

I remember from a thread a while back (I think it was one of @Hyperborean’s) that asked everyone about what their favourite historical period was, and there were quite a few replies, which means that it is evident that quite a few of us are history buffs here. With this in mind, I’ve put this thread forward to discuss everyone’s favourite alternative history theories.

Alternative history is, I find, a fascinating subject to speculate over - every event in history is the result of a choice, and each of these choices, whether minor or major, creates its own separate timeline. As a result, in this day and age there are many thousands, if not millions, of alternative universes where different choices were made, whether in the recent or distant past. Some of these alternative realities are actually very similar to our own, as the choices that differed in those timelines were minor and had little effect on the course of the future, while others are almost entirely different due to an entirely different course of history. Alternative history is without a doubt fascinating.

I ask you all then, what is your favourite alternative history, and why? Feel free to speculate all you like, and I look forward to hearing all the fascinating ‘what if’ scenarios you come up with!

 

[Killer Angel]

Turtledove wrote some really interesting novels regarding alternate history.

The ones that i find more appealing are (relatively) recent scenarios, when we know enough facts and we can truly recognize some "turning points" where things could have been developed in a very different way if not for a small thing.

For example, the South winning the civil war and breaking USA in two. At a certain point it was really a possibility.

 

[Padre]

In recent years, Robert Conroy has written a number of pretty good alternate histories. Off the top of my head, they include:
-Custer wins Little Big Horn and becomes president.
-Himmler continues on with WW2.
-America loses at Yorktown.
-WW1 with a German invasion of CA from Mexico.
I've skimmed them and they are pretty entertaining. If you enjoy the genre, check them out.

 

[Paradoxical Pacifism]

I never got into it, but i was thinking what if Neanderthals never went extinct

 

[Killer Angel]

In recent years, Robert Conroy has written a number of pretty good alternate histories. Off the top of my head, they include:
-Custer wins Little Big Horn and becomes president.
-Himmler continues on with WW2.
-America loses at Yorktown.
-WW1 with a German invasion of CA from Mexico.
I've skimmed them and they are pretty entertaining. If you enjoy the genre, check them out.

Some of these ones seems interesting…
must check.

 

[DeathBringer125]

An idea I just thought up was what if the Romans had not spread as far. The would have had less areas to defend and may not have fallen. Rome’s could still be the most powerful nation today.

 

[Lord Agragax of Lunaxoatl]

The ones that i find more appealing are (relatively) recent scenarios, when we know enough facts and we can truly recognize some "turning points" where things could have been developed in a very different way if not for a small thing.

For example, the South winning the civil war and breaking USA in two. At a certain point it was really a possibility.

That one is a classic - I’ve been thinking a lot about that one myself. An additional component to this particular reality would be that Queen Victoria had intended to send British troops to assist the Confederates - in our reality Prince Albert stopped this from happening saying that ‘it is their civil war, leave it to them’, which is of course an understandable response, but there would be alternative universes where that didn’t happen and the British Empire and the French (who agreed to go in with us if we went over) helped the South to split from the North.

Regardless of whether the South split from the North by itself or with help, it would have found itself in need of industrialisation as most of the factories were in the North, but as the South always had better ties with Britain than the North, we could have sent some engineers and supplies over to help them get back on their feet. Conversely the North would have suddenly found the need for more agriculture because most of the farms were in the South, and because they would now be bordered by both British-occupied Canada to the North and the British-friendly Confederacy to the South, they would have had no choice but to attempt to be friendlier to us earlier.

Let us now fast forward to the two World Wars - with the South being a separate nation now they are able to make their own decisions, which means that because they were friendlier with us and the French they may well have joined the wars considerably earlier, if not from the beginning onwards, to assist their allies, even if the North still tries to stay out of it for as long as possible as the whole of America did in the prime timeline. This means that the First World War could have ended earlier which may have meant that Britain and France both suffered fewer casualties, which would have led to stronger British and French armies in the Second World War. This could have then meant that Britain and France (and the Confederacy if they joined early again) were able to hold the line against the Germans rather than being pushed back to Dunkirk, thereby allowing both countries to establish a strong base in Europe to attempt to push the Germans back again. Again this could have meant that the Second World War ended earlier, meaning fewer casualties were lost on the Allied side and would have resulted in a more powerful Britain and France afterwards. Conversely the US would be weaker due to having a considerably smaller population thanks to the separation of the Confederacy.

 

[Lord Agragax of Lunaxoatl]

An idea I just thought up was what if the Romans had not spread as far. The would have had less areas to defend and may not have fallen. Rome could still be the most powerful nation today.

Conversely this would also have meant that fewer nations ended up being under Roman influence. Indeed I have been thinking a lot about what would have happened if Britain was never Romanised - a scenario I had thought of was that if the Gallic chieftain Brennus, whose forces defeated the Romans around 390-387 BC, had annexed Rome for his tribe, the Senones, rather than being bought off as he had in the prime timeline. This would have extinguished Rome’s chances to rise not long after its formation, and would have resulted in Celtic Europe lasting a lot longer.

Anyway, I believe that had the Romans not invaded Britain, the various tribes of Britain would have been assimilated by an especially large and aggressive tribe called the Catuvellauni, who inhabited the areas now known as London, Surrey, Essex and Oxfordshire - indeed where before most tribal wars in Britain had been minor raiding scuffles based on stealing animals, supplies and wealth, the Catuvellauni, by AD 43, had taken control of one tribe through a puppet king, had established a strong alliance with another and had defeated a third through military conquest and sent their king into exile. This was evidently just the start of an expansion that could have unified all the tribes in Britain had it been left to carry on without interference from foreign powers. Furthermore, if the Druids, based in Anglesey, had expressed particular support for this unification, the dominance of the Catuvellauni would be assured, as no tribe argued with the Druids’ judgement. If this had happened, a unified Celtic Britain would have stood much more of a chance of repelling the Saxons, Angles and Jutes than the weakened Britain left undefended by the Romans in our timeline, meaning that it would be highly likely that Britain would have remained a unified Celtic kingdom, possibly even to this day. Furthermore, the repelling of the Saxon invasion would have meant Britain would have stayed unified for a lot longer rather than being divided into the various Saxon kingdoms for another few hundred years as had occurred in this timeline.

 

[Killer Angel]

That one is a classic - I’ve been thinking a lot about that one myself. An additional component to this particular reality would be that Queen Victoria had intended to send British troops to assist the Confederates - in our reality Prince Albert stopped this from happening saying that ‘it is their civil war, leave it to them’, which is of course an understandable response, but there would be alternative universes where that didn’t happen and the British Empire and the French (who agreed to go in with us if we went over) helped the South to split from the North.

Regardless of whether the South split from the North by itself or with help, it would have found itself in need of industrialisation as most of the factories were in the North, but as the South always had better ties with Britain than the North, we could have sent some engineers and supplies over to help them get back on their feet. Conversely the North would have suddenly found the need for more agriculture because most of the farms were in the South, and because they would now be bordered by both British-occupied Canada to the North and the British-friendly Confederacy to the South, they would have had no choice but to attempt to be friendlier to us earlier.

Let us now fast forward to the two World Wars .

Yeah, there are speculative scenarios, with North and South sided with different Powers during WWI (North w Germany and South w England), but even if fascinating, i think this would have been unlikely.
With the similarity in culture, and the shared linguage, North and South would have more easily formed a friendly attitude toward each other, similar to the current allegiance between USA and UK.

 

[Aginor]

Some interesting ideas there!

Let's see. What if....


Ancient:
- Alexander the Great would not have died (he died of Malaria pretty early), that would be massive I think, for Asia especially.
- The Romans wouldn't have split up?


Medieval/Renaissance
- The Turks would have won the Battle of Vienna? Europe would look drastically different.
- the Spanish reconquista would have failed?
- William the Conqueror would have lost the Battle of Hastings?
- Zheng He discovered America, and the Chinese built settlements there. At some point somewhere on the continent the European settlers would meet them.
- Pizarro and/or Cortés would have lost their wars against the Incas/Aztecs and the Spaniards would not have given it a second try?
- Napoleonic Wars ended earlier?
- American Revolutionary War failed?
- American Civil War won by the South or neither party (two states)?


Modern:
- the Russian revolution failed? The Tzars would probably have reacted differently to what caused WW1 and WW2
- the Germans wouldn't have joined WW1 when the Austrians started it? That would remove some of the main reasons why WW2 happened.

WW2:
- Hitler hadn't cancelled the invasion of England and invaded it before going to war with Russia... the Nazis probably would have won WW2 in Europe.
- the UK and others would have reacted to the invasion of Poland like Hitler assumed they would (doing nothing, like when he invaded the Czech Republic)?

After WW2:
- the Cuban Missile Crisis would have gone hot?
- the Vietnam War was actually won by the USA?

 

[Killer Angel]

Some interesting scenarios (and just looking at England), that would have likely been possible:

The Spanish Armada was a fleet of 130 ships that sailed in1588, under the command of the Duke of Medina, with the purpose of escorting an army to invade England. The strategic aim was to overthrow Q. Elizabeth I and the Protentantism in England.
Queen Elizabeth’s fleet was in the harbour at Plymouth, with ships sitting like ducks because they were loading provisions and were halted by the tide.
Had the spanish attacked, it would probably have been a terrible loss for England; at that point the Armada could have proceeded with their plan, to take a catholic army across the Channel and land them at Margate, where the invasion of England would have begun.

or

The Gunpowder Plot of 1605; it ended as a failed assassination attempt against Kings James I by a group of English Catholics. It failed due to an anonynous letter, but what if not? the Conspiracy could have been successful in killing the King and a great part of the whole House of Lords, leaving England without command, ready to be taken by catholic noble conpirators...

 

[DeathBringer125]

So I have a proposal. What would have happened if the Polish had the winged hussar in the early medieval or medieval era. In case you guys don’t know who the winged hussar are the are the greatest mounted cavalry who have ever lived. I’m gonna post some links and more information once I refresh myself on them.
http://www.badassoftheweek.com/hussars.html
Basically in 1683 the ottoman Turks had pushed back the holy Roman empire’s entire army to Vienna. The turks were sieging the city and were winning. The Polish king Jan Sobieski sent and army of around 18 thousand Polish (3000 were winged hussar). Against the Turkish army of over 200,000. The winged hussar routed the army and took their villages and killed a lot of their men. And this was after the invention of guns and cannons. So what would have happened if the winged hussar were used by Poland earlier. My guess is they could have conquered most of Europe.

 

[Killer Angel]

So I have a proposal. What would have happened if the Polish had the winged hussar in the early medieval or medieval era. In case you guys don’t know who the winged hussar are the are the greatest mounted cavalry who have ever lived. I’m gonna post some links and more information once I refresh myself on them.
http://www.badassoftheweek.com/hussars.html
Basically in 1683 the ottoman Turks had pushed back the holy Roman empire’s entire army to Vienna. The turks were sieging the city and were winning. The Polish king Jan Sobieski sent and army of around 18 thousand Polish (3000 were winged hussar). Against the Turkish army of over 200,000. The winged hussar routed the army and took their villages and killed a lot of their men. And this was after the invention of guns and cannons. So what would have happened if the winged hussar were used by Poland earlier. My guess is they could have conquered most of Europe.

This introduces a new element, a shift in time for events actually occurred. I don't know…



I've got another couple of "what if".

WW2
20 july 1944. Operation Valkyrie is a success, the bomb placed by Claus von Stauffenberg effectively kills Hitler. The conspirators take political control of Germany and make peace (not at the conditions they hoped for, but peace nonetheless).
Europe doesn't suffer the horrors of the last year of war, Germany is not torned in two, the economical reprise is much faster, the political scenario of the incoming cold war would be totally different.
I don't want to enter too much in speculations, but probably even the cultural impact of the Holocaust would have been different, sparing the jews one further year of suffering, with many of them set free by the Wehrmacht army.
Surely the western world we're living in would be different.

480 BC - Battle of Salamis
Persians win the battle, Greece becomes a "protectorate" of Serse's Empire. The cultural flowering of the fifth century is stifled in the bud.
What direction would have taken the whole western culture?

 

[Aginor]

So I have a proposal. What would have happened if the Polish had the winged hussar in the early medieval or medieval era. In case you guys don’t know who the winged hussar are the are the greatest mounted cavalry who have ever lived. I’m gonna post some links and more information once I refresh myself on them.
http://www.badassoftheweek.com/hussars.html
Basically in 1683 the ottoman Turks had pushed back the holy Roman empire’s entire army to Vienna. The turks were sieging the city and were winning. The Polish king Jan Sobieski sent and army of around 18 thousand Polish (3000 were winged hussar). Against the Turkish army of over 200,000. The winged hussar routed the army and took their villages and killed a lot of their men. And this was after the invention of guns and cannons. So what would have happened if the winged hussar were used by Poland earlier. My guess is they could have conquered most of Europe.

As badass as they were, I doubt it.
Cavalry is fast, and strong against infantry, especially infantry that isn't used to fighting cavalry a lot, but it is very expensive and requires good supply lines (or lots of open plains with grass to feed the horses)
It is also relatively useless in sieges or for holding territory.
Keep in mind that during that time there were loads of castles in western Europe, and also quite a number of cities with big walls.
And even simple palisades are rather effective against cavalry.
Another problem is mountains and rivers, as well as fighting in forests.

So I think while it would certainly have been dangerous for the other European states, without effective allied infantry they would not have come very far.

 

[Lord Agragax of Lunaxoatl]

As badass as they were, I doubt it.
Cavalry is fast, and strong against infantry, especially infantry that isn't used to fighting cavalry a lot, but it is very expensive and requires good supply lines (or lots of open plains with grass to feed the horses)
It is also relatively useless in sieges or for holding territory.
Keep in mind that during that time there were loads of castles in western Europe, and also quite a number of cities with big walls.
And even simple palisades are rather effective against cavalry.
Another problem is mountains and rivers, as well as fighting in forests.

So I think while it would certainly have been dangerous for the other European states, without effective allied infantry they would not have come very far.

Agreed. Even if the Winged Hussars were able to destroy any enemy force on an open battlefield, they would still need help to assault a fortified position, hence the stupidity of Denethor forcing Faramir’s knights to charge the Orcs entrenched in the ruins of Osgiliath in Lord of the Rings.

 

[Killer Angel]

In case you guys don’t know who the winged hussar are the are the greatest mounted cavalry who have ever lived.

At the risk of derailing the thread, mandatory link.

 

[DeathBringer125]

True the couldn’t have taken cities or fought in rough terrain with them but if they were able to lure armies out the Hussar could have destroyed them and then they could have taken the city with normal troops.

 

[ChapterAquila92]

Rise from your grave, oh Alternate History thread!

Probably spurred by a passing interest in AlternateHistoryHub, there's more than a few timelines that have been brought up with quite the butterflies. Sadly don't have access to Youtube due to using a work potato out at sea, but the following scenarios come to mind:

Woodrow Wilson was never elected President. Prepare to rewrite the rest of the 20th Century onwards, because so much that happened, from the Russian Revolutions and the rise of the Nazis in Germany, to the foundation of America's current foreign policy (Wilsonian Interventionism), were all shaped by his legacy in office. In other words, he was to the 20th Century what Napoleon was to the 19th.

Carthage won the Punic Wars instead of Rome. Europe and especially the Mediterranean wouldn't see a military hegemony like it did IRL, due to Carthage's focus on being a mercantile power like Venice was IRL. The most profound change would be due to the lack of a unifying force that the Roman Empire provided in the long term.

Command & Conquer: Red Alert series. Gotta love a wacky "time travel gone wrong" plot involving the erasure of Hitler from history. As per every scenario that AltHistHub has gone into detail regarding the Eastern Front during WW2 (specifically regarding Operation Barbarossa), the Soviets under Stalin have consistently proven paranoid enough to launch an invasion into the rest of Europe, which is what follows in the Red Alert series (albeit with wacky tesla coil technology). The setting grows increasingly campy after that to the point of becoming stupidly awesome.

 

[Lord Agragax of Lunaxoatl]

Carthage won the Punic Wars instead of Rome. Europe and especially the Mediterranean wouldn't see a military hegemony like it did IRL, due to Carthage's focus on being a mercantile power like Venice was IRL. The most profound change would be due to the lack of a unifying force that the Roman Empire provided in the long term.

Nice to see one of my threads necromanced!

Carthage defeating Rome instead of the other way round would certainly be a game changer - not only was Carthage more of a sea power as you say, meaning it would be likely less of the world would have been brought under its rule than the Roman Empire, but also those peoples who would have been brought under Carthaginian rule would have been a lot less brutally treated as the Carthaginians were way more tolerant of other nations than the Romans were (you can see this in their army structures - a lot of the soldiers Carthage used were troops from other nations drafted in either for pay or due to common cause, yet the different ways of fighting of these men were tolerated rather than suppressed, while peoples of foreign nations defeated by Rome were shoved into the poor-quality auxiliary brigades and used to do all the dirty work for the Roman-born Legionaries). I imagine that as Carthage did not quarrel nearly as much with the Celts as the Romans did, northern Europe would have remained under Celtic rule in the same vein as in my Brennus-annexes-Rome scenario, while all of the west side of the Mediterranean coast would have been under Carthaginian rule, with the Greeks in charge of the eastern side.

 

[pendrake]

Smallest change with the biggest consequences:

One pistol misfires and jams.

The pistol was wielded by J.W. Booth, the actor. Abraham Lincoln serves his full second term.