Historical 'What If's

[Arganaut]

All righty then, as the historical aspect of the Ultimate Showdown thread as died off due to lack of anything more to discuss, its left me with the need to discuss something historical, in some context. So I decided to go take a page from my old History classes and bring up the ideas of discussing 'historical what ifs'.

The idea is self-explanatory: take a significant event/quick series of events and discuss a change that might greatly effect how history would go on. Now, someone can either call the change 'bull-shit', saying that it could never happen and thus is beyond discussion, or suppose just how the change would effect the historical time line, if there would be any notable changes to be had.

I'll go first: Christopher Columbus, Amerigo Vespucci, Giovanni da Verrazzano. These are just a few names amongst the many of Italian Explorers and Navigators whom served foreign crowns in their race to colonize the New World. The crowns of Spain and France, and in fact, many of the great nations of Europe owed their knowledge of far off lands to the natural sea-faring talents of the Italian people.

However, never once were these Italians exploring in the name of any of the Italian nation-states on the peninsula. And surely there was money to be had for such ventures. The Republics of Genoa and Venice were quite rich up into the mid-1450s, the Florentine Republic had prospered under the reign of the Medici family, and Italy was the most populated region of the European Continent of that time.

However, after the 1450s, after the Ottomans took control of Eastern Trade, and especially after Portugal discovered a way to the riches of the East around the Cape of Good Hope, the Italian city-states crumbled and decayed, left open for repeated attempts to be controlled by the other great European Empires.

Even Venice, whom repeatedly tried to reclaim some semblance of its riches, eventually fell to repeated wars against the Ottomans and the Austrians...

However, what if instead of looking towards old riches and glory, the Italians used what wealth they had to look in a new direction?

Historical Change Scenario: What if the various Italian Nation-States had kept many of the famed explorers we knew today, and funded their efforts for colonizing into the New World?

[Magnificate]

Historical Change Scenario: What if the various Italian Nation-States had kept many of the famed explorers we knew today, and funded their efforts for colonizing into the New World?

AFAIK explorer's were exploring and trading, not colonizing. Do you mean latter colonization efforts?

Ah, my alternate-history-buff persona will either squeal in delight or shriek in terror for this new thread.

[gman391]

It's an interesting idea but I don't really see it happening.

Italy was dependent on trade through the Black Sea. The only to get them looking west is to come up with some new income involving the west.

But assuming that thanks to the power of Magic they did have the income to support trade west. I'm not sure they would have the population to do so. Especially given their rather frequent wars with each other. But let's make another assumption and say that Italy had a massive population boom then.

Odds are the Italian city states would all found their own colonies. Probably on the same style as Portugal. Lots of cities sited at strategic points rather than massive colonies. Eventually the northern powers would overcome them. Thanks mostly to Portugal and the Netherlands both trying to do the same thing and having it out with the various states.

However It would also be equally likely that Venice or Genoa would rise to final prominence and unite Norther Italy. In which case it's anyone's guess who would win that trade war.

Of course this all assumes that the HRE/France doesn't get it in their heads to wreck Italy's stuff until after they're well established.

Long term differences? Not sure there'd be much. England would still have it's empire. And still do most of it's stuff....although with the Dutch noticeably more weakened we might end up with a larger British Empire. With Italian rather than Spanish as the main trade language in the southern hemisphere. Spain's lack of a larger overseas empire would prevent it from becoming a superpower.....but France would just take it's place. (Hell the two were already very close to even in RL) The various Succession Wars would probably play out differently but largely the same effects.

So yeah that's my take on it.

As a side note the Renaissance was mostly funded thanks to our good friend Mansa Musa (You may remember him as the leader of the Mali in Civ IV) Who as a dutiful Muslim made a pilgrimage to Mecca.

The Mali at that time were ridiculously wealthy thanks to gold mines and control of the trade lanes through Timbuktu. So Mansa came through Egypt and flooded the area with gold. The Italians who traded with Egyptians a lot. (One of the reasons the Doge didn't go after Egypt during the fourth crusade) managed to gain a fair bit of this wealth and avoid inflation. Right around the time of Columbus that little boost was just about tapped out. I don't think that the Italian City States could have maintained their prosperity much longer anyway. Especially given the various wars going on thanks to that Martin Luther and his reformation.

Sorry about the info dump.

Now for my own What If a bit closer to the Present for us.

Little known fact Britain and America both sent troops to Russia after the 1917 revolution to put down the Bolsheviks. THey didn't do a whole lot. Eventually the expedition was declared a failure and they with drew.

But what if they had managed to succeed?

[Magnificate]

Little known fact Britain and America both sent troops to Russia after the 1917 revolution to put down the Bolsheviks. THey didn't do a whole lot. Eventually the expedition was declared a failure and they with drew.

But what if they had managed to succeed?

Difficult to achieve. Main problems to overcome include the lack of effective White leadership, the war-weariness of the Entente nations, the lack of coordination between Entente states, vast distances and the fact that only the core Russian regions really mattered, so even with Ukraine, Siberia and Caucasus taken by the interventionists and Whites the Reds can still hold out.

Damn, why is this posted when there is 1:30 in the morning where I live and I really need to go to bed? :D

[Arganaut]

Ooooh, that's a good one... hmmm.

I'm going to go ahead and say this event isn't ENTIRELY unreasonable. With Britain and the US having had the most advanced armies and navies in the world, a tad more funding, and a lot more soldiers, could've tipped the balance in favor of the faction of their choosing.

With that said though, even if there were initial successes, long-term I don't think it would hold out. The Russian Revolution, while highly galvanized by the Bolsheviks and other Communists, was also widely... sought out by the people. Its entirely possible that the second that the US and the UK would leave Russia after their faction of choice wins, the revolution would just go again in full throw...

Then again... its not entirely impossible to believe that the people of Russia were just looking for ANYTHING different besides the Romanovs... if the UK and the US supported democratic factions in Russia, perhaps the change from a monarchy to a democracy would be enough of a change to sedate the Russian people, and thus cease further revolutionary activity... although, in this scenario its still entirely likely that the communists could just be voted into power afterwards. Hell, perhaps even just a new royal family would be enough.

Either way, the system could just as easily slide back into communism or revolution once Western Forces evacuate. At least, that's my take on it anyway.

Alright then, I've always had this one tucked into the back of my mind and I just find it too hard to resist contemplating in this thread:

We all know that Joan of Arc helped lead France to separate from England during the 100 Years War. Her victories helped pave the way for the future king of France, Charles, to sit on his throne in Paris...

However, let's take a step back and ponder: how would history have changed if England had won the 100 Years War, and absorbed the entirety of France?

[gman391]

Damn, why is this posted when there is 1:30 in the morning where I live and I really need to go to bed? :D

Blame Arg for this one.

Any ways England fully managing to absorb France.....Well damn; right there you have a super power more than capable of taking Spain or the HRE at it's height. Now to be honest this one isn't as implausible as one might think. Henry V basically achieved this. Problem was his successors sucked so bad that they make George W look competent.

So assuming they don't suck. Let's see what would change. Scotland would be absorbed sooner with no Auld Alliance to help them out. And let me check something yep assuming Henry VI didn't suck and was just as capable as his father. We get no War of Roses. Which in turn means we get no Henry VIII(You know the nice chap who kept offing his wives)

No Henry VIII=
No large scale Protestant Revolution. England was the first country to go completely Protestant and led the way. It's tacit support of both the Netherlands and the Hugenots allowed both groups to sap strength from Spain and France.

Of course it's an open question of whether or not..... England/France (Hereafter referred to as the Norman Kingdom or N.K.) wouldn't say screw it and take the Netherlands themselves.
Hell no armada or Queen Elizabeth I.

So without the Armanda and internal strife to Bring Charles V and Phillip II to the breaking point. Spain maintains it's power. Until the N.K. and Spain have their first war.

Which I can't say who would win. But the colonization of the New World would differ dramatically. Instead of having two relatively vast states(Canada and US) controlling most of the North American Continent. We'd get something like South America. Lots of medium sized nations united by language and culture but not much else.

the main languages would be Spanish, German Italian, Latin and Franco-English.

After this point I can't really say. Derailing the Protestant Reformation like that throws a huge spanner in the works that I can't begin to guess at the implications of.

Of course this assumes that the N.K. stays together.

Anyways one of mine now?
Alright after Ghengis Khan died his son Ogedai took over. Now Ogedai was about as competent as his dear old dad was. His only weakness being that the man drank like a fish. Long story short despite uniting virtually all of central Asian and northern China the man died before he could finish kicking Europe's ass.

So what happens if Ogedai didn't die?

[Arganaut]

Huh, was hoping someone else would be given a chance to answer. As no one took it, I'll take it.

Quite simply, its my belief that while Ogedai would have probably infiltrated Europe, that he wouldn't have stayed for too long. Germanic tribes alone would be a challenge, combine that with the Hun Horde in or around Eastern Europe would present with a near equal opponent. Also, the fact that they'd have been stretched so thin by that point, they'd be pressed to be able to keep the territory they had free from rebellions.

Really, Ogedai dieing when he did probably benefited the Mongol Horde, stopped them from stretching so thin that an immediate and complete collapse was avoided. Though, eventually they were pushed back.

Edit: Gah! As pointed out by GMan my historical recollection here is completely off. Please ignore the embarrassed History Major as he tries to just explain this away by saying that he had stayed up far too late when writing this!

Alright then try this one on for size: the Latin Alliance DOESN'T sack Constantinople/Byzantine Empire during the 4th Crusade. GO!

[gman391]

What the hell.....wrong time period!
The Mongols were in the twelfth century not the the fourth (when the Huns/Germanic tribes were around)
Ogedai shattered and I do mean shattered Hungary, Poland, Prussia and basically every European country north of Macedonia and east of Germany. It was only because he died that we didn't have a European Khanate. The splintering I would agree with though...

But ignoring that.

The Latin Alliance not sacking Constantinople? Hmm tricky to do because the Dodge had an epic hatred for the Byzantines. But assuming that doesn't happen. Well maybe they'll actually get to the Holy Land. If so than the Crusader States would hold out a bit longer. Other than that not much would change. France would be a bit weaker in the long run but not to any effective degree. However Byzantium not going down well I'm not sure it would save the empire anyway. The Turks were already playing the "Beat on Romans" Game.

Byzantium would put up a better fight to be sure. But in the long run I can only see a delay not a victory for Constantinople.
Of course that effects any number of things and the butterfly effect almost ensures that we'd somehow get a Danish speaking North America or something.

Okay I'll toss one up. One that has been debated many times.
Napoleon wins at Waterloo what happens?

[Magnificate]

Excuse the nitpicking, it’s just I’m used to do that after my tenure at AH.com forums:

With Britain and the US having had the most advanced armies and navies in the world,

Naval superiority doesn’t matter that much.

and a lot more soldiers,

You’ll need to explain that to your public opinion.

Its entirely possible that the second that the US and the UK would leave Russia after their faction of choice wins, the revolution would just go again in full throw...

Are you implying that the US or Britain could somehow occupy Russia? Even Germany, save the Rhineland, wasn’t occupied.

if the UK and the US supported democratic factions in Russia,

Which ones? You’ll need at least some popular support for that to work.

Napoleon wins at Waterloo what happens?

Nothing much. He’ll just lose the next battle as he had pretty much all of Europe against him. Napoleon delays the inevitable and in doing so damages France’s (Talleyrand’s) standing in Vienna, since there now an impression that France must be weakened or it’ll cause trouble again. (Sardinia might get Corsica, Alsace might be separated ect.) Also, as it was not the British (and Prussians) that dealt the final blow to Napoleon, someone else is going to have decisive voice on the peace treaty. Russian (and Austrian) standing increase in the post-Napoleonic Europe, (maybe to the point of Prussia being Russian client state, but likely not that far reaching.) All in all, that means dominance of more conservative ideas in the near future.

What If: German Communist in 1919 are more successful, to the point of an actual revolution.

[serbii]

I'm not going to answer as, really, I don't know enough history. Human history in particular; I always preferred natural.
However it is interesting seeing which moments people choose, I'm curious as if where you live will affect which points in history you choose as we've got a rather global forum here.

[doc.exe]

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.

And well, answering serbii's question, I'm actually interested in seeing how the changes inflicted in European countries in the scenarios proposed would affect Latin American countries. Given that we were colonies of Spain and Portugal for a long, long time, the possibility of the more "different flavored" Latin America that gman mentioned sounds interesting. There is also the fact that the Liberation and Independence movements in the Latin American region during the 18th century was in part a result of Spain being invaded by France. I wonder if those movements would have been succesful at all if the colonies in Mexico, Central and South America were in possession of a different country.

[gman391]

Okay the German uprising succeeding in 1919?

Honestly? I think the allied powers would make various noises of "Screw that Noise!" and invade Germany from the Rhineland. Which would derail WW2 and the Holocaust. But give good ol' Uncle Joe a target. So a more plausible version of Red Alert then? Without the time travel bit.

On the other hand Japan and the U.S. would still go at it. And with the war in Europe distracting them more. Japan might possibly be able to get a draw. Doubtful I admit. It would depend on how much France and Britain relied on American funds/men

Still France would never acquire that reputation for being cheese eating surrender monkeys
The Brits did have ideas for early blitzkrieg warfare stashed away. (That they never used it says a lot about how flat footed the Brits were)

Okay that's big picture. I honestly think Joe would lose his fight. Especially after a few nukes to the face. So no more USSR. Britain and France would still maintain their hegemony well into 70's

China no go communist without Russian backing for Mao.

Spain doesn't become fascist.

And all told we'd have a very different society. The Red Scare of the 1950's would be in 1930's. And once they discovered all that Stalin did to his people....well communism might get a bad name.

That's just my quick and dirty take on it. Probably missing some important things. (Sorry Doc I don't know enough about south american history to guess there)

One for my own country.

Canada never becomes a country. Make it happen and chart the effects. Without making it into an America controls all of North America bit.

[Arganaut]

... Ummm... they stay apart of the British Empire up until the 1950s when, alongside the collapse of much of the rest of the British Empire, large chunks of Canada take their opportunity to break away, thus resulting in a mismatch of cultural states (such as an independent Quebec)?

I know this doesn't sound like much, but then again Canada, even as a Dominion, was still much a part of the British Empire. Not giving it a semi-autonomous Dominion status and just having it remain directly under the control of the Parliament and the British Crown doesn't seem like it'd be too great of a change (aside from what I mentioned above).

Alright then, how about this one: As we all know, the United States of America suffered greatly during the Civil War. Many died fighting in this battle, giving their lives for their own causes and 'countries'.

Despite the South's great military leaders, the Confederacy was eventually brought down by the North...

What if it wasn't?

[Phht]

Okay, let's see.

Honestly, I don't really see a way for the South to pull off a draw, much less a victory. The North has better production, railroads, and manpower. Later on they picked up competent leadership. The best the South could probably do is delay the loss for a few more years at best.

If we say "they didn't lose at Gettysburg" (or maybe just "no Pickett's Charge"), that might keep the confederate armies in the east going well, but there's more than one front to this conflict. By the end of the final day of the Battle of Gettysburg, Vicksburg just fell to Union forces (giving the Union control of the Mississippi River for all intents and purposes). New Orleans fell the previous year. Savannah's been closed to traffic by the fall of Ft Pulaski. The blockade's been expanded beyond major ports. Lincoln made ending slavery in the South a goal of the war in late 1862, leading Britain to avoid intervening on the CSA's side.

Probably the best way to consider a CSA 'win' in the Civil War would be if cooler heads prevailed regarding Ft Sumter. To give an idea of the importance of this moment, it was what amounts to the Civil War's Pearl Harbor in the way it galvanized support for retaking the South.

Spoiler: show

• Some things to note:
• The fort commander had moved his troops from Ft Moultrie to Ft Sumter in late Dec 1860 to reduce the chances of a militia attack and hopefully reduce tensions. Of course, it instead caused people to flip out.
• A resupply and reinforcement attempt had been made to Ft Sumter in early Jan 1861. Confederate batteries fired on it and the ship withdrew without taking damage.
• A resupply fleet was dispatched to Charleston after Lincoln was informed the fort only had ~6 weeks of supplies left. Most of the fleet would wait outside the harbor while unarmed supply ships went in to resupply the fort - thereby maintaining the current status quo. Lincoln informed SC's governor of the plan Apr 6.
• CSA gov't decides (with one opposed) to try to take the fort before the resupply fleet arrives.
• Apr 12, bombardment begins. Apr 14, US flag comes down in surrender. Apr 15, call to arms by Lincoln.

So best bet for CSA survival pretty much centers on how they handle Ft Sumter. Secondary points during the war itself would be maintaining control of the Mississippi River (no losing Vicksburg and preferably no losing New Orleans either), breaking the blockade permanently, not losing at Gettysburg, and preventing Sherman's Atlanta campaign (which led to the March to the Sea).
And since I totally didn't answer the actual question (but rather, how the heck would it even be possible for them to survive the war), I won't post a what if so someone can properly answer the question.

[Arganaut]

Well, something to consider as a possible way for the South to actually win the war would've been to get the help from the British or the French.

[Phht]

Unfortunately, there's that whole 'slavery' thing. Britain had abolished slavery in its colonies back in 1834 and public opinion was fairly against slavery by the 1860s over in Europe. Then the US threatened to go to war with any country that recognized the CSA as a legitimate country. And then in 1862 the Emancipation Proclamation came out, freeing all slaves in the seceded states (not the Union states), which really put Britain and France off on acknowledging the CSA.

The US worked hard to make sure foreign support was not possible for the CSA.


Amusingly, had the war continued longer, the CSA might've abolished slavery on its own to deal with manpower shortages in the military.

[gman391]

Turtledove aside the Brits and French have no reason to help the CSA.

Britain already has an amount of cotton built up so no reason there. And the French would be leery of American ventures considering the last time they did that it brought about the French Revolution.

I just don't see a reason for them to get involved. A United States busy shooting itself is A-Ok for the foreign powers. Not to mention both had gotten away from the whole Slavery.
(Well actually Britain had started using it as an excuse to commerce raid but let's ignore that)

To make the south win?
Kill Eli Whitney after he invents the cotton gin but before inventing Mass Production. That knocks back industry enough for the South to have a fighting chance.

Assuming the South did win....well I hate to copy Turtledove here but I'd see something similar. At the very least the U.S. wouldn't become a world power until much later.

Okay Rome had pretty much everything needed in order to kick start the industrial revolution. Never did though. So my question what if Rome did kick start the Industrial revolution.....1400 years early?

[Magnificate]

Ah, another trademark debate.

That depends. How was the abundance of cheap labor force, meaning slaves, dealt with? Technological challenges (not strong enough steel) and geographical challenges (little fossil coal in the Mediterrean) might be overcome, but there'll be no industrialization without an economical incentive. (Seriously, my tendency to nitpick gets the better of me.)

[gman391]

Catastrophic plague?

[Arganaut]

Indeed, it was the Black Death that really kicked Europe out of its Feudal Land-Owning system back in the 12th and 13th Centuries. Let's say, hypothetically, that around the time of Trajan a huge, continent-wide plague spread throughout the Roman Empire (let's say it was brought over by any of the numerous nomadic people that were moving about Rome's borders at the time) that suddenly made the 'cheap labor' more valuable, and thus necessitated the release of the slaves in order to try to balance out the huge rise in the value of labor.

[serbii]

Catastrophic plague?

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?

[Wittgen]

That's an absurdly unlikely scenario given the lack of hygiene and medical knowledge. Still, I don't think it would have changed too much. There would still have been major pressures on feudalism. For instance, there was that mini-ice age that caused widespread crop failures and as a result a lot of hunger.

[serbii]

It's not that unlikely. I mean there's only be one occurrence that was on the scale of the black death that we know about. Wiki's got only 5 occurances under notable pandemics, with 3 of them being before 1000AD

Spoiler: show

There have been a number of significant pandemics recorded in human history, generally zoonoses which came about with domestication of animals, such as influenza and tuberculosis. There have been a number of particularly significant epidemics that deserve mention above the "mere" destruction of cities:

-Plague of Athens, 430 BC. Typhoid fever killed a quarter of the Athenian troops, and a quarter of the population over four years. This disease fatally weakened the dominance of Athens, but the sheer virulence of the disease prevented its wider spread; i.e. it killed off its hosts at a rate faster than they could spread it. The exact cause of the plague was unknown for many years. In January 2006, researchers from the University of Athens analyzed teeth recovered from a mass grave underneath the city, and confirmed the presence of bacteria responsible for typhoid.[12]
-Antonine Plague, 165–180. Possibly smallpox brought to the Italian peninsula by soldiers returning from the Near East; it killed a quarter of those infected, and up to five million in all.[13] At the height of a second outbreak, the Plague of Cyprian (251–266), which may have been the same disease, 5,000 people a day were said to be dying in Rome.
-Plague of Justinian, from 541 to 750, was the first recorded outbreak of the bubonic plague. It started in Egypt, and reached Constantinople the following spring, killing (according to the Byzantine chronicler Procopius) 10,000 a day at its height, and perhaps 40% of the city's inhabitants. The plague went on to eliminate a quarter to a half of the human population that it struck throughout the known world.[14][15] It caused Europe's population to drop by around 50% between 550 and 700.[16]
-Black Death, started 1300s. The total number of deaths worldwide is estimated at 75 million people.[17] Eight hundred years after the last outbreak, the plague returned to Europe. Starting in Asia, the disease reached Mediterranean and western Europe in 1348 (possibly from Italian merchants fleeing fighting in the Crimea), and killed an estimated 20 to 30 million Europeans in six years;[18] a third of the total population,[19] and up to a half in the worst-affected urban areas.[20] It was the first of a cycle of European plague epidemics that continued until the 18th century.[21] During this period, more than 100 plague epidemics swept across Europe.[22] In England, for example, epidemics would continue in two to five-year cycles from 1361 to 1480.[23] By the 1370s, England's population was reduced by 50%.[24] The Great Plague of London of 1665–66 was the last major outbreak of the plague in England. The disease killed approximately 100,000 people, 20% of London's population.[25]
-Third Pandemic, started in China in the middle of the 19th century, spreading plague to all inhabited continents and killing 10 million people in India alone.[26] During this pandemic, the United States saw its first case of plague in 1900 in San Francisco.[27] Today, isolated cases of plague are still found in the western United States.[28]

There would always be other diseased and pandemics, the thing about the black death is that it was so unusually deadly. Lack of hygiene wasn't the cause of such a catastrophic death toll. If the plague bacteria, Yersinia pestis, hadn't existed, which is the senario I'm suggesting, it would not have been replaced with one just as deadly.
It is disadvantageous for a disease to be so deadly as it's killing off it's hosts/environment which is why it happens so rarely. If you kill off all your hosts, you die too.

So remove Yersinia pestis from history. It is highly unlikely that something as deadly will take its place. Hygiene or not, just say we get the regular epidemics; influenza, typhoid, cholera etc etc.

The cause of The Plague wasn't lack of hygiene or medical knowledge. Yes those things would have made more people get sick more often, however all those other diseased didn't wipe out 50% of Europe. If we remove that one usually deadly disease from history, or say drop it's death down to 5% rather than 50% what happens?

[gman391]

Well if we're operating by that logic than a few things happen. Feudalism still breaks down. Takes longer though. And Europe undergoes several periods of large scale starvation and wars.

Interesting side effect is that the Humanist movements don't occur for some time. Much of Academia was destroyed by the plague allowing new people with new ideas who taught in their native language to take charge. Which probably means that Catholicism holds on to it's power base a bit longer.

Now the interesting question is that would such over population be enough to send people west across the sea?

I don't think so not with the mini ice age doing it's things. Over all we see the same history but it takes longer.

Although the Yuan Dynasty in China might survive longer.....

[doc.exe]

What about the American civilizations? Assuming European feudalism gets longer, thus meaning Renaissance and the era of Voyage and Explorations get delayed, wouldn't that mean that American civilizations would advance and grow without interference for another couple of centuries or so. How that would affect them? How that would affect the future interaction with European explorers and conquerors?