Historical 'What If's

[jgkitarel]

Speed limits usually get enforced in the US, but there are areas where the cops aren't stupid enough to try. On the other hand, speed limits aside, I've seen my share of idiot drivers throughout the country. Worst?

Top 5, in order:

Washington D.C
Northern Virginia in general {the top 2 are also rated as worst traffic in the US per capita of drivers}
Boston
Greater Seattle Area
Augusta Georgia (Can't tell if it's Georgia drivers or South Carolina drivers, they're pretty equal in this area)

[gman391]

In my home country of Canada what I've noticed is

Virtually all the drivers I complain about on the highway are from Alberta
City driving? Usually Vancouver but supposedly Montreal is worse. Which scares me.

Wasn't this thread supposed to be about Alternate Timelines?

[MrRigger2]

Washington D.C

QFT. Seriously, they don't know what they're doing. And god help you if you ever want to find a place to park. Of course, the problem is compounded by the fact that DC has one of the poorest street layouts in the world. Four unconnected 8th Streets is just the beginning.

MrRigger

[Tempest Kitsune]

I visited DC once. I made it a point to only take the subway, and walk.

[jgkitarel]

Wise move.

Oh, and Rigger, part of the problem for DC come from the fact that the city is still in the same layout the Pierre L'enfeant, the guy who designed the city, planned. It was designed to be aesthetically pleasing to late 18th - early 19th century sensibilities. Of course, none of them ever figured on the automobile...

[MrRigger2]

Oh, I know why it's so horribly designed. He also planned the city to be evocative of European cities, though I can't remember exactly why. It still doesn't change the fact that you should you never try to drive in the city. Like TK said, use the metro and walk. You can get anywhere you might want to go with just that, and you don't have to try and find parking.

MrRigger

[jgkitarel]

Ask the opinion of anyone who lives in the area,and they'd tell you a good urban remodeling project revolving around fire keeps sounding better every year....

Trust me, I'm from Northern Virginia, and most residents of that area hate DC with a passion.

[MrRigger2]

I'm in MD, so I've been to DC more than a few times. I know exactly what they're talking about.

MrRigger

[jgkitarel]

Joined the Army to get away from there. Cheaper than moving and I get to see some interesting places.

Of course, with my luck, I'll end up being stationed in that area if I decide to go career.

[Aldraia Dragonsong]

What if Alexander Hamilton ran for President instead of John Adams in 1796?

[jgkitarel]

Easy, he would have angered someone and gotten into a duel. He is one of the reasons duels are forbidden by law.

If he won the duel, he would have passed something similar to the Alien and Sedition Act (IMO John Adams would have been the VP back then, since they were originally chosen as the one who got 2nd place), probably started a war with France because of self said act (they were not, and rarely were, our friends), and the industrialization of the North would have started sooner.

[Aldraia Dragonsong]

Then again, maybe he would anger so many people that Thomas Jefferson would win the election.

[jgkitarel]

How about losing a duel to Jefferson.

[Arganaut]

Here's another historical what if I thought of recently.

What if Duke Charles The Bold of Burgundy never died? What if the Grand Duke of the West managed to successfully trounce the Holy Roman Emperor and successfully set up Burgundy as a long-standing state between France and the HRE?

[ewuvi]

WHAT IF

Frederick II of Prussia ended up marrying Maria Theresa (essentially the ruler of the HRE)

[Jaur]

Oh, my!
I just found this thread and I really love this kind of thing and after reading throught the whole thing I really can't help but beat a few dead horses I found once over again:

Well, most of my history knowledge is somewhat rusted, but adding to that debate about the UK and USA managing to stop the Bolsheviks, the only way I can see that being plausible at all is if some event called World War I didn't happen or was delayed by a decade. That by itself presents an interesting secenario, given that by the end of the 19th century/beginning of the 20th all of the most powerful nations in Europe were in a cold war state ready to get hot at any moment.

Then we can conclude that it would never happen. If there where no WW1 then there would be no coup removing the Romanovs and opening up a window of opportunity for Lenin, thus no Revolution. We would certainly have seen change in russia but a communist revolution would have been very unlikely... The only reason for Lenins success was the power-vacum left after Russia withdrew from the war and disposed of the Tsar.


Another interesting one:

A-a-a! I counter with something similar.
No black death
As Arg mentioned the Plague is what killed off feudalism in Europe along with 2/3 the population. What if the Black Death never occurred? Say, no catastrophic plague of any kind since 1000AD?

Well what happened in Europe is one thing but I can't help remembering the historicans that claim Europe got of lightly! At least compared to Africa. Several African civilizations where wiped out by the plague and set the continent back centuries longer than Europe to the point that it was still weak and vulnerable when European warships showed up on the horizon. Combine this with the no humanism movement that Gman mentioned and we would see a vastly different world today. The age of discovery would not have started when it did in Europe, if at all. We might even see a world dominated from Africa. At the very least stronger, more developed nations in Africa would mean that the slavetrade to America would not have happened...

On to the next one;

What if the European invasion of America was postponed a hundred years or so?

I'm not as sure as most of the other posters that Europe would have won in the end. Sure they still had horses and illness working for them but really... The Inca fell because the invasion force arrived just after a prolonged civil war where one side had just won a decisive victory. Had they had a decade or even a few years to rebuild they would not have fallen so easily and taking a strong united Inca by force of arms is no joking matter, the horses would be a moot point in the mountains so the only things mattering would be smallpox and friends... Even firearms did not really give a decisive advantage in the real world until mid 19th century when the metal patron started being massproduced.

The aztecs where a very strong empire and I have actually read an essay by a history proffesor discussing just this, pointing out how lucky Cortez was when he conquered it. He could just as easily have ended up in a shallow grave as triumphing, leaving the Aztec plenty of time to adapt to the new threat. In the long run it would require social change to survive but it is far from obvious that strong native american nations would not have survived to present day like they did in Asia. (Japan, China anyone?)


Then we move on to the Chinese discussion. What if the Nationalists won?

I fail to se the fantastic economic growth that they have today occuring at all... Sure, more aid at first might give an upswing just after the war but then the problems would start. Just because the nationalists won the war would not have made the widespread popular communist support go away. combine that with widespread corruption in the governement and various separatist movements and china would have fallen to pieces quite soon. We might have a political situation during the second half of the century more similar to central america. Small nations with weak corrupt regimes, the odd communist revolution and civil wars werever you look. No attempt of unification would be longlived. Economic growth is not exactly on the agenda. Even if they stay united, Argentina anyone? Fantastic possibilities wasted by a corrupt military governement.
As Wittgen said the educational efforts by the communists play a large role in the later development and just like the industrialisation of Japan during the Mejin restoration the current economic boom is the result of a central coordinated effort. All leads to one clear message; no communists = no economic wonder!

Even in a best case scenario we would have a repressive military dictatorship with the only difference from today being what ideology they claim to follow. They would ofcourse be fanatically anti communist to keep internal opposition down and get US goodwill. The korean war would be a quick affair if Kim sr would have dared to start it at all without a communist China at his back. I'm a bit more uncertain about the eventual effects on the Vietnam war.
Rather pessimist prediction but all hope is not lost; look at South korea. During the 90´s they managed to turn from a poor country under a military dictatorship to an industrialised democracy with good prospects. China might do something similar...

---

Someone mentioned a no Israel scenario?

I think that the biggest possible change would actually be the US policy and not the Sovjet one. Without a "Defend Israel at all cost" stance they would have the possibility to introduce positive change in the region without the popular hostility they now face.

Of course that might be overly optimistic to balance my negative Chinese predictions... They would still battle out with the Sovjets over the oil, just with another focus. but still one cannot help but hope.


I was really impressed by the realistic discussion about the delayed nuclear bomb. That might actually have happened since the German scientists at their nuclear program actively lied to Hitler and stopped the research. At an international seminar in Copenhaguen they tried to convince their american conterparts to do the same thing without success. I still can't help smiling at the thought of an international conspiracy of scientists keeping these apocalyptic weapons out of the hands of irresponsible politicans.

There was a question in there about the Kalmar union? I can't ignore it seing that it refers to my home region.

Seeing how much one would have manipulate history to keep the Kalmar Union together for that long, let’s choose something easier, OK?

Not really, The Union split due to the old power struggle between the crown and the nobles. The Swedish nobles wanted their own puppet on the throne. If queen Margaret had acted more forcefully and broken the nobles power it could easilly have lasted to this day. The Danish-Norwegian union did last until the Napoleon wars after all.
However I'm very unsure if the union would have ment the emergence of a strong power in the northern Europe. While large to the surface it would not have a very large population. Without the Danish-Swedish rivalry Sweden would not have developed a effective governement model under the Vasa nor a military like the one put into use 16th-17th century. This means that military speaking the Union would likely have been weaker than just Sweden became later. Meaning that the 30 years war would likely have ended with a Catholic victory. The German-Roman empire would have survived as a political force for a while longer. Russia would not have had such a strong northern rival forcing them to modernize. All of this would likely have let Poland remain as an important power occupying much of what later became western Russia like Ukraine and Bellarus... Well, that is quite a big change after all.

---

Ops, this was long, and I havn't even goten to the current question...

WHAT IF

Frederick II of Prussia ended up marrying Maria Theresa (essentially the ruler of the HRE)

Hmm, A difficult one. A strong united kingdom ruled by a strong woman. (No one would belive that Frederick would have done anything but playing with his philosophers right?) The question is what would she do? Would she be a rival of France or Russia? Conquer the rest of Germany? My guess is that she would rule with an iron hand and the contry would fall apart at her death...
The most interesting thing is if she had the power to get Balkan solidly under her power. If Russia didn't get a foot in it would mean no WW1 later on... at least not the way it happened. The tension between the european countries would remain...


So finally a new one... what if:

The Prague spring -68 succeded in creating a strong alternative in the middle of the cold war frontline and got other countries of central Europe to follow suite? It could be possible if the Sovjet Union where a bit slower to react and the reformists worked for a few more years in silence without openly provoking the hard core communists in Moscow.