What alternate history ideas you wish they were used more often?
- Thread starter Gar48
- Start date
A more sucessful Tacky's war. Myabe the maroons support Tacky instead of the British, or maybe the British do worse in the 7 years war or something. We could get a smaller version of Haiti or something. Even if the British reconquer Jamaica the local reactions (Especially in Saint-Domingue) could be interesting.
I think that would have been interesting to explore the impact on both the industry and the Pop culture if Gregory Ratoff (I.Fleming's 007 producer) would get accepted his proposal about that American actress Susan Hayward were to be cast as the the first on play the iconic British Spy.
Perhaps the effects of Alternate Mongol Conquest ripples?
Just off the top of my head: If the Yuan were simply content with their Chinese possessions and focused on holding China instead of aggressive expansion of influence, there are a few major changes:
1) The Japanese Samurai Culture likely doesnt become prevelant. Perhaps no Sengoku Jidai? Even if the country splits, it will be more like HRE: A massive amount of states, mostly at sorta peace and with "war" being quite limited in scale and scope except for a few powerful factions. This also means we wont be seeing the Japanese Empire of our tl, perhaps a different/nonexistent modernisation of Japan with much weaker if still existent Shoguns? Also, incidents such as Marco Polo never would have escelated into war without the aggressive militarisation push. Japan might have even remained disunited!
2) Majapahit was actually formed by a weak faction, who allied with a Mongol invasive force to overthrow a rival, stronger state and then backstabbed the Mongols to establish themselves. Without the Majapahit, the history of Indonesia unfolds a lot differently.
3) Mongols also invaded Vietnam, Burma, Sakhalin, and those are just the ones made by Yuan (I didnt include Korea since even a "content" Yuan would have likely invaded it to
secure it's Eastern Border)
Or perhaps, no Ilkahanate? The Mongols simply fail to invade Persia due to the presence of a very strong empire (Khawarizmians) and a very competent ruler (Not the actual Sultan, but his son (Celaleddin Harzemşah / Jalal al-Din Khawarizmshah) whom won several battles against the Mongols and actually did temporarily stall the Mongols, until he was beaten by a coalition of Armenians, Ayyubids and Seljuks at the Battle of Yassıçimen. With several small changes, Jalal al-Din might survive and be the "Buffer" with the Mongols until the initial Mongol steam dries off.
Or, The Golden Horde. Even with very minor changes, you can easily make it so that Muscovy, which was a small state that rose thanks to it's role in fighting against the Golden Horde, might never become a strong state or the centre of Russia. Instead, other candidates like a potential Kievan Rus (The Mongols burned down Kiev, but before that the Kievan Rus was a powerful state that literally gave it's name to Russia), a Merchantile Novgorod (Alexander Kulikovo, anyone?) or perhaps some other state like nearby Vladimir-Suzdal, Tver or even Ryazan if you want to invoke some Eu4 memes.
And that's just scratching the surface, TL's that butterfly the Mongols have so much MORE on their plate to change than they do, and it's kinda disappointing. In fact, You could have every change i listed with giving the Mongols A SINGLE bad defeat that makes them weaker before Genghis Khan's death and the division, since all three are just those Mongol statelets acting slightly differently or being faced with slightly different circumstances.
Just off the top of my head: If the Yuan were simply content with their Chinese possessions and focused on holding China instead of aggressive expansion of influence, there are a few major changes:
1) The Japanese Samurai Culture likely doesnt become prevelant. Perhaps no Sengoku Jidai? Even if the country splits, it will be more like HRE: A massive amount of states, mostly at sorta peace and with "war" being quite limited in scale and scope except for a few powerful factions. This also means we wont be seeing the Japanese Empire of our tl, perhaps a different/nonexistent modernisation of Japan with much weaker if still existent Shoguns? Also, incidents such as Marco Polo never would have escelated into war without the aggressive militarisation push. Japan might have even remained disunited!
2) Majapahit was actually formed by a weak faction, who allied with a Mongol invasive force to overthrow a rival, stronger state and then backstabbed the Mongols to establish themselves. Without the Majapahit, the history of Indonesia unfolds a lot differently.
3) Mongols also invaded Vietnam, Burma, Sakhalin, and those are just the ones made by Yuan (I didnt include Korea since even a "content" Yuan would have likely invaded it to
secure it's Eastern Border)
Or perhaps, no Ilkahanate? The Mongols simply fail to invade Persia due to the presence of a very strong empire (Khawarizmians) and a very competent ruler (Not the actual Sultan, but his son (Celaleddin Harzemşah / Jalal al-Din Khawarizmshah) whom won several battles against the Mongols and actually did temporarily stall the Mongols, until he was beaten by a coalition of Armenians, Ayyubids and Seljuks at the Battle of Yassıçimen. With several small changes, Jalal al-Din might survive and be the "Buffer" with the Mongols until the initial Mongol steam dries off.
Or, The Golden Horde. Even with very minor changes, you can easily make it so that Muscovy, which was a small state that rose thanks to it's role in fighting against the Golden Horde, might never become a strong state or the centre of Russia. Instead, other candidates like a potential Kievan Rus (The Mongols burned down Kiev, but before that the Kievan Rus was a powerful state that literally gave it's name to Russia), a Merchantile Novgorod (Alexander Kulikovo, anyone?) or perhaps some other state like nearby Vladimir-Suzdal, Tver or even Ryazan if you want to invoke some Eu4 memes.
And that's just scratching the surface, TL's that butterfly the Mongols have so much MORE on their plate to change than they do, and it's kinda disappointing. In fact, You could have every change i listed with giving the Mongols A SINGLE bad defeat that makes them weaker before Genghis Khan's death and the division, since all three are just those Mongol statelets acting slightly differently or being faced with slightly different circumstances.
An Old World power playing Islamic Revolution Iran-style games in the New World with other powers' colonies resulting in a domino effect and a complete collapse of most colonial extraction models. Make it unprofitable enough and be willing to enrage every major colonial power enough, and eventually the whole enterprise could collapse.
Say a France that has quite literally zero New World colonies bar Haiti circa 1700, and losing even that in a bad, bitter war. Have France cut their losses and treat decolonization with the same energy they gave it OTL; burn everything down on the way out so nobody can have nice things if they can't. Incite Haiti into a slave revolt while covertly supporting its spread to the rest of the Caribbean until plantation slavery is a distant, burning memory in the ashes of the sugar plantations.
Or a slightly different dynamic to Anglo-Spanish relations leading up to the Revolutionary War resulting in Britain having the time and opportunity to back Tupac Amaru II as the Spanish back the Americans. Neither power can reconquer their former colonials when they've got overt help from another colonial power, resulting in the normalization of 'Find native collaborators in a hostile colony, and leverage them like crazy to destroy my enemy's powerbase through a thousand cuts' as part and parcel of European colonial diplomacy amongst each other.
Say a France that has quite literally zero New World colonies bar Haiti circa 1700, and losing even that in a bad, bitter war. Have France cut their losses and treat decolonization with the same energy they gave it OTL; burn everything down on the way out so nobody can have nice things if they can't. Incite Haiti into a slave revolt while covertly supporting its spread to the rest of the Caribbean until plantation slavery is a distant, burning memory in the ashes of the sugar plantations.
Or a slightly different dynamic to Anglo-Spanish relations leading up to the Revolutionary War resulting in Britain having the time and opportunity to back Tupac Amaru II as the Spanish back the Americans. Neither power can reconquer their former colonials when they've got overt help from another colonial power, resulting in the normalization of 'Find native collaborators in a hostile colony, and leverage them like crazy to destroy my enemy's powerbase through a thousand cuts' as part and parcel of European colonial diplomacy amongst each other.
Last edited:
One recent thing I've learnt is that in the early 20th century the liangguang wanted to leave the qing, and the only reason why it didn't work is that sun yet Sen and the Brits didn't want it to happen. If it happens in an alt tl with a 19th century pod things would be very interesting (maybe the Brits are comparatively weaker than otl and want to prove their mettle more, so they fight in china?).
The fun thing here is that it'd be a Cantonese state bc that's what the liangguang controls, and the fact is that a few of the ppl who run it aren't nationalistic in terms of being Chinese too. I think it's the most likely scenario of the Brits making a 'protectorate of Guangdong' scenario BC of it.
The fun thing here is that it'd be a Cantonese state bc that's what the liangguang controls, and the fact is that a few of the ppl who run it aren't nationalistic in terms of being Chinese too. I think it's the most likely scenario of the Brits making a 'protectorate of Guangdong' scenario BC of it.
Last edited:
I would like to see a timeline where the Arabs from the Arabian Peninsula in ancient times (maybe from the 1st century BC) sail down the Somali coast, forming prosperous merchant communities and intermingling heavily with the Somali people and then use the fervor of the Early Islamic era to continue traveling down to what is now the OTL Swahili coast and form the Swahili people, with Persian male traders joining later, culminating in a merchant oriented Arabian empire based in Arabia holding Somalia and the Swahili coast.
This hypothetical Arabian empire could even participate in the Scramble for Africa, although the Scramble for Africa could be avoided because of the butterfly effect.
This hypothetical Arabian empire could even participate in the Scramble for Africa, although the Scramble for Africa could be avoided because of the butterfly effect.
I think villainous/monstrous characters "earning" their success
Im not talking about genocidal apologia or any kind of support for atrocities nor justification for them like "it was a hard choice"
No, I'm talking about characters who are openly bastards and the story makes no attempt to justify them, maybe explain their reasoning and motivation yes but never try to make them seem like good people
Yet they still succeed because they worked THAT hard for it and everything they got, as immoral it may be, came as a pay off to those efforts
And before anyone tries to imply Im thinking of some moustached dictator as if I give a crap about them...
I actually had that thought watching this
Im not talking about genocidal apologia or any kind of support for atrocities nor justification for them like "it was a hard choice"
No, I'm talking about characters who are openly bastards and the story makes no attempt to justify them, maybe explain their reasoning and motivation yes but never try to make them seem like good people
Yet they still succeed because they worked THAT hard for it and everything they got, as immoral it may be, came as a pay off to those efforts
And before anyone tries to imply Im thinking of some moustached dictator as if I give a crap about them...
I actually had that thought watching this
I agree, it's extremely annoying to see the fact that villains are always portrayed as such incompetent people that it makes you question why they're even supposed to be a threat.
It is even stranger because with the rest of the characters, this "culture of effort and hard work as a guarantee of success" is promoted as if it were an immovable physical law.
But not in the case of the villain, what it seems is that the only areas in which his efforts are successful... are those that will later bring about his downfall. Outside of that, everything is doomed to failure.
Makes you wonder what the point is.
Not a fact - considering that the rise of the samurai is associated with the fall of the government of the Heian period. And Japan had a strong sense of community that would take more butterflies to destroy. The only thing that contributed to the Mongol invasion attempt was the fall of the Kamakura shogunate, as well as the beginning of the formation of Japanese nationalism.
Novgorod is overvalued - in modern terms, it was a raw material appendage of the Hansa, where trade guilds existed only as a clientele of boyars who were not interested in the development of production or the unification of Rus', but only in selling furs and wax to German merchants. At the same time, we should not forget that any medieval republic is the tyranny of one municipality over all other territories.
If I remember correctly, the most promising center of unification before the Mongol invasion was the Principality of Galicia-Volyn.
Just means they're not good at writing believable antagonists. Incompetent villains are boring and uninteresting.
The most absurd thing is that authors usually try to defend themselves by claiming things like "Well, fascism IS incompetent, I'm NOT going to paint a good portrait of them if I invent a competence that they lack."
Even though it's basically undermining its own premise, because what it seems like isn't that its characters and countries are fighting a great evil...
...but rather that they're being gratuitously brutal because, if the bad guy is that stupid, they'd probably just have to sit back and wait for it to implode on its own.
The best option specially when you consider how it's assumed as a fact that Nazi Germany was one month away from suffering a total economic collapse, which would trigger a revolution against the regime in the name of cleaning up the economy (not because people give a damn about the increasingly authoritarian and oppressive nature of the regime, of course) ...despite the fact that somehow it remained that way for 6 years without said "imminent" economic collapse ever occurring
There are very few good Ottoman timelines that arent just ridicilous Otto-wanks or Otto-screws. Despite existing for 600 years, and contrary to popular belief probably being the most likely to survive into the modern era than the Russians and A-H in WW1, there are very few decent timelines about them. I saw some, like the Crescent Above Us 2.0 and Osman Reborn*, but really there is too many potential wasted.
Edit: Links for both:
Edit 2: Both are currently unfinished. I think Crescent Above Us 2.0 is in hiatus or smt, and currently its stuck in WW1. Osman Reborn meanwhile is currently in Interwar Period and is getting updated.
Edit: Links for both:
Edit 2: Both are currently unfinished. I think Crescent Above Us 2.0 is in hiatus or smt, and currently its stuck in WW1. Osman Reborn meanwhile is currently in Interwar Period and is getting updated.
With the Crescent Above Us 2.0: An Ottoman Timeline
Fadıl Necmi; The Sublime Ottoman State: A History of the Ottoman Empire: Istanbul University Press The Crisis of the 1870s For all the wrong reasons it seemed, 1873 would be a turning point for the Ottoman Empire. It had been almost a half-century since the destruction of the Janissary Corps...
www.alternatehistory.com
Osman Reborn; The Survival of Ottoman Democracy [An Ottoman TL set in the 1900s]
Osman Reborn: The Survival of Ottoman Democracy *** Chapter 1: Preparations for War? *** “The Legacy of the Italo-Ottoman War is one of incredulity in Italy, and one that of pride in the Ottoman Empire, and not without reason. The war did a lot to restore the pride of its citizens in the...
www.alternatehistory.com
Last edited:
Also, Russia in almost all timelines is either this extremely corrupt horrible "democracy" similar to irl, horrendious Communist shithole even worse than irl Stalin, or some extreme nationalist far-right nazi type of deal. Really sick of seeing this cliche, even in timelines where Russia isnt the main focus. I'm not asking for a Switzerland level democracy, just something better.
I dont know much about Russian history i admit, but here are 2 people who could have brought on a much better USSR:
1) Alexei Rykov
Alexei Rykov was a Bolshevik Moderate, who advocated for a peaceful takeover of power from the Tsar. like Lev Kamenev, he remained influential and both those men served as Heads of state after the death of Lenin. He and Kamenev represented a "moderate" faction in the Bolsheviks during and after Lenin, and without Stalin's rise to power in a POD and assuming someone else like Trotsky or Bukharin doesnt assume power, they could have lead a more Peaceful USSR. Perhaps an extension of the USSR that created the Litvinov Protocols rather than Stalin's expansionism. Of course, without Stalin's deadly push for industrialisation and pushing the border Westward, there is the possibility that the Great Patriotic War might have ended differently, but you can always butterfly away Hitler. Just have him die in the Beer Hall Putsch, for example, as a side/main POD.
2) Georgy Malenkov
I want to focus on Malenkov a lot more than Rykov, since we know more about how he would lead the USSR. Georgy Malenkov was a Soviet statesmen who rose through the ranks by cozying up with Stalin, and fighting against the influence of Andrey Zhdanov and disgracing Georgy Zhukov after WW2, altough he was among the 5 Strongest Soviet Statesmen in WW2 in the State Defence Commitee. Malenkov is described as: "Malenkov stressed universal values of science and engineering, and proposed to promote technological experts to the highest positions in the Soviet administrative elite" in his wikipedia page, and he is usually considered a Technocrat. He was also PERSONALLY involved in the Soviet nuclear and missile programs during and after WW2. He succeeded Stalin as Premier after Stalin's death, before being replaced by Khruschev. He was involved in the Anti-Party Group conspiracy alongside Molotov and Kaganovich. Later in life (After his fall from power and sidelining) he converted to Orthodoxy, and he was a reader and choir singer at his last years.
Now, What are the potential inclinations? Imagine a Soviet Premier, who defeats Khruschev and is personally technocratic and pragmatic (Of course, to a degree), with personal interest in the Soviet Missile Program (Literally overseeing it for a few years)? Well, here is your ticket at a more successful Soviet Space Program, possibly with Soviets beating America to the Moon. Not to mention, the Soviet Economy, which was doing decent enough, could be created a lot better here with more pragmatic, reformist and technocratic policies. The main reason Gorbachev's reforms failed can be summed up as "Too Little, Too Late", and while i dont expect Malenkov to reform to such an extend (Especially in the context of Glasnost), a great deal of reform would happen. Another result could be a differently structured Warsaw Pact, with stuff like Polish Thaw or Budapest Revolution being handled differently. We might not have seen Soviet tanks rolling through Budapest. Which brings me to my next point: The Berlin Wall. I am not that knowledged about it i must admit, but Malenkov might have chosen a different aproach instead. Perhaps he could have hyperfocused investments into East Berlin, making it a lot more appealing to stop the brain drain but more importantly, the worker drain. Maybe he could have negotiated a more strict border control options with the US and NATO and come to a compromise, who knows. On another note, Malenkov would have a much harder falling-out with Mao and Enver Hoxha, due to his probably more Anti-Stalinist rhetoric. Assuming he manages to stay in power for a decent lenght of time, the entire Cuban Missile Crisis might not have happened. Maybe the USSR forgoes any idea of supporting communists in America (Except for Castro whom did his revolution without much Soviet Aid at the start) and instead focuses more on Asia and Africa. Perhaps Malenkov has an alternate relationship with Israel (All i could find about it was the fact that Malenkov superwised the Doctors Plot and the end of Jewish Anti-Fascist Militia, altough both were ordered by Stalin so it is hard to say). I would love to see an Arab World supported by the USA and Israel supported by USSR. Maybe the USS Liberty incident is similar to this world's Cuban Missile Crisis? For further points, i dont know. I really have no idea how the internal politics of the USSR worked post-Khruschev or even Post-Stalin. Would Brezhnev still get into power? Who knows. Either way, Malenkov leading the USSR is (In my opinion) More "realistic" or more accuratly more "grounded" than Rykov leading the USSR, but both are pretty good opportunities to make a USSR that is actually half-decent. Maybe modern day USSR would be an authoritarian, somewhat right-infringing state with a stagnating but still pretty big economy, and whichoccasionally threathens it's neighbours but doesnt do stuff like Chechen Wars, Invasion of Georgia, Crimea and of course Ukraine. Kind of like modern day Turkey, ironically.
What are your thoughts? I would say that i dont know a lot about modern history, so the things i said might be dumb but i digress. We are here to learn, after all.
I dont know much about Russian history i admit, but here are 2 people who could have brought on a much better USSR:
1) Alexei Rykov
Alexei Rykov was a Bolshevik Moderate, who advocated for a peaceful takeover of power from the Tsar. like Lev Kamenev, he remained influential and both those men served as Heads of state after the death of Lenin. He and Kamenev represented a "moderate" faction in the Bolsheviks during and after Lenin, and without Stalin's rise to power in a POD and assuming someone else like Trotsky or Bukharin doesnt assume power, they could have lead a more Peaceful USSR. Perhaps an extension of the USSR that created the Litvinov Protocols rather than Stalin's expansionism. Of course, without Stalin's deadly push for industrialisation and pushing the border Westward, there is the possibility that the Great Patriotic War might have ended differently, but you can always butterfly away Hitler. Just have him die in the Beer Hall Putsch, for example, as a side/main POD.
2) Georgy Malenkov
I want to focus on Malenkov a lot more than Rykov, since we know more about how he would lead the USSR. Georgy Malenkov was a Soviet statesmen who rose through the ranks by cozying up with Stalin, and fighting against the influence of Andrey Zhdanov and disgracing Georgy Zhukov after WW2, altough he was among the 5 Strongest Soviet Statesmen in WW2 in the State Defence Commitee. Malenkov is described as: "Malenkov stressed universal values of science and engineering, and proposed to promote technological experts to the highest positions in the Soviet administrative elite" in his wikipedia page, and he is usually considered a Technocrat. He was also PERSONALLY involved in the Soviet nuclear and missile programs during and after WW2. He succeeded Stalin as Premier after Stalin's death, before being replaced by Khruschev. He was involved in the Anti-Party Group conspiracy alongside Molotov and Kaganovich. Later in life (After his fall from power and sidelining) he converted to Orthodoxy, and he was a reader and choir singer at his last years.
Now, What are the potential inclinations? Imagine a Soviet Premier, who defeats Khruschev and is personally technocratic and pragmatic (Of course, to a degree), with personal interest in the Soviet Missile Program (Literally overseeing it for a few years)? Well, here is your ticket at a more successful Soviet Space Program, possibly with Soviets beating America to the Moon. Not to mention, the Soviet Economy, which was doing decent enough, could be created a lot better here with more pragmatic, reformist and technocratic policies. The main reason Gorbachev's reforms failed can be summed up as "Too Little, Too Late", and while i dont expect Malenkov to reform to such an extend (Especially in the context of Glasnost), a great deal of reform would happen. Another result could be a differently structured Warsaw Pact, with stuff like Polish Thaw or Budapest Revolution being handled differently. We might not have seen Soviet tanks rolling through Budapest. Which brings me to my next point: The Berlin Wall. I am not that knowledged about it i must admit, but Malenkov might have chosen a different aproach instead. Perhaps he could have hyperfocused investments into East Berlin, making it a lot more appealing to stop the brain drain but more importantly, the worker drain. Maybe he could have negotiated a more strict border control options with the US and NATO and come to a compromise, who knows. On another note, Malenkov would have a much harder falling-out with Mao and Enver Hoxha, due to his probably more Anti-Stalinist rhetoric. Assuming he manages to stay in power for a decent lenght of time, the entire Cuban Missile Crisis might not have happened. Maybe the USSR forgoes any idea of supporting communists in America (Except for Castro whom did his revolution without much Soviet Aid at the start) and instead focuses more on Asia and Africa. Perhaps Malenkov has an alternate relationship with Israel (All i could find about it was the fact that Malenkov superwised the Doctors Plot and the end of Jewish Anti-Fascist Militia, altough both were ordered by Stalin so it is hard to say). I would love to see an Arab World supported by the USA and Israel supported by USSR. Maybe the USS Liberty incident is similar to this world's Cuban Missile Crisis? For further points, i dont know. I really have no idea how the internal politics of the USSR worked post-Khruschev or even Post-Stalin. Would Brezhnev still get into power? Who knows. Either way, Malenkov leading the USSR is (In my opinion) More "realistic" or more accuratly more "grounded" than Rykov leading the USSR, but both are pretty good opportunities to make a USSR that is actually half-decent. Maybe modern day USSR would be an authoritarian, somewhat right-infringing state with a stagnating but still pretty big economy, and whichoccasionally threathens it's neighbours but doesnt do stuff like Chechen Wars, Invasion of Georgia, Crimea and of course Ukraine. Kind of like modern day Turkey, ironically.
What are your thoughts? I would say that i dont know a lot about modern history, so the things i said might be dumb but i digress. We are here to learn, after all.
Correction, it is not that Aragon was neutral, but that there were no blocs to align with as we understand them today
The closest thing to "blocs" that existed in the Mediterranean at the time was Christianity versus Islam... and I use the term "bloc" very loosely, because the "members" of the "blocs" spent so much time fighting each other as against the members of the other "bloc".