Alternate history scenarios, ideas, general questions and miscellaneous points

I'm trying to figure out a plausible alternate history that ends with Ancient Greece ruling the entire world (both old and new). The addition of Psychic Powers helps, but I'm not sure if it's enough.

One idea I had was significantly better relationships between the US and the Native Americans/lack of willpower for the former to destroy the latter, allowing them to have more cultural influence in the long run. Eventually, the native tribes are absorbed in a manner similar to Hawaii, though.

I'm not sure what would trigger this.

edited 12th Mar '16 6:29:48 PM by Protagonist506

So, after some research, I figured out an actual plausible alternate history I'll be using for my 'homeworld' (my story deals with alternate universes as a major theme).

Basically, Hitler succeeds at the Beer Hall Putsch in 1923, but because he was actually not too popular at the time (he had his followers, but he was seen as annoying and ridiculous by most people) he gets his ass whooped within a month, is imprisoned for life and is regulated to irrelevant trivia. Thus, Nazism never becomes a major force in the world. World War 2 still happens, due to the expansion of Imperial Japan and animosity between the Soviets and the rest of the westren world, but it is much more localized, and is split into two wars (the war with the Soviets is what people in this world mean when referring to WW2—the war with Japan is referred to simply as the American-Japanese War). Ironically, it actually lasts a little longer—while Japan is defeated by 1943, but of course invading Russia is still a terrible idea, and the war is stuck in a stalemate until 1951. The Cold War still happens, as the Soviets survive the war intact, but as nuclear weapons are never developed (the project was scrapped with the war in '51), the threat is merely a very destructive conventional war. The Korean war is part of 'WW2' in this world, and the South actually wins more-or-less singlehandedly due to Allied presence in the region. The Soviet Union, oddly enough, falls sooner, in 1984 (due to economic weakening still lingering from the war).

The result is an overall more peaceful world, without nuclear weapons or random rouge nations trying to show off how cool they are every other month. Radical Islam still develops, but the world doesn't hate the US as much, so it's not as strong, and 9/11 isn't a thing. There are negative consequences, of course—as antisemitism was not decisively discredited by a Holocaust-type event, it still exists as a major force, though perhaps not at Nazi levels. But overall, the optimism of the 1990s is still prevalent in the world.

How does decolonization work in your world? Does it happen at all?

Nukes are going to happen unless you alter the laws of physics in your world. They are going to be developed sooner rather the later if WW 2 happens, especially a longer war. Maybe their danger is recognized beforehand and a nuclear proliferation treaty is ratified by the major nations. But then you will need some sort of UN to police them.

edited 15th Mar '16 10:37:25 AM by DocJamore

The NA gave more of an effort to bargain during their early expositions with the Europeans?

I didn't think of decolonization, but since you mention it, I figure that after Gandhi, it was pretty much inevitable. The empires were just too large, and the locals were too restless. It might have started a little later because of the war, but it would have happened one way or another.

As for nukes, that's a good point. Maybe the UN is more effective in this world, or maybe the League of Nations survives and fulfills the UN's role somehow.

Also how went the whole Civil Rights movement if Nazi Germany didn't happen? It's been noted that on the Hitler Time Travel Act page that afterwards people started to abandon a lot of prejudices, out of the basis that no one wanted to be on the same page as Hitler.

Did something else help push it forward a few years?

It's starting to seem like I'm relying a little too much on 'history sorts it out.' I'd like to think that the rejection happens simply out of the natural human desire for freedom, but that's just not how things work. Maybe the more atrocious actions of KKK-type groups are more publicized? Maybe a more peaceful world leads to people of different races intermingling peacefully more often?

Well we are here to help out by kicking ideas around.

Right.

Your setting doesn't need to be on the "Hard" end of the Sliding Scaleof Alternate History Plausibility. The setting is just the background of the story. A different WW 2 does not mean that you cant write the story you want to write but it is something to keep in mind.

For example if your story takes place in a small town, then the outside world is not going to matter too much but it may get a offhand mentioning. It all comes down to scope.

edited 15th Mar '16 12:43:08 PM by DocJamore

Really all that matters is that all rules in your setting are consistent and the story is good. Make a consistent world and you can sell people on anything.

Hm. Maybe I'll detail my Cyberpunk world in here some time.

Yeah, I mostly wanted a world that establishes "this story involves alternate universes" while still being recognizable as our world. But I also wanted it to be detailed because 1) I like worldbuilding and 2) I need info on exactly where my main characters come from (both my leads are from this world). Plus, I just wanted to create a peaceful 21st century world realistically.

I had an idea in my mind; a variation on the "America loses the Revolutionary War" scenario. Here it loses, however in the early 1800s a less successful revolution led to an independent set of states. The US territory is split between the ISA(Independent States of America) who don't answer to England, and the American Commonwealth which does(and has a prime minister). The story is set in the mid-19th century, where a conflict is brewing between them for Western territory in an alt-Wild West.

Aboriginal Australians in my timeline have a vastly decreased chance of heart disease and diabetes compared to OTL due to changes in this timeline (due to DO Ha D). Changes include the early development of a Pan Asian Trade Route. Exposure to knowledge from across Africa, Asia and North America lead to the development of well developed Australian Aboriginal civilizations early in the timeline which provided its peoples with a good quality of life and good antenatal care. By the time the space age rolls around the Aboriginal Australians have hundreds of years of exposure to a diet high in carbohydrates and fats and have adapted to an environment of plenty.

These effects also can lead to successive generations being shorter or taller. Due to good antenatal care and the general population being more well nourished over many generations, the average height of North Asians such as Chinese and Koreans is 180 cm for males and 164 cm for females.

In this timeline, the average member a group of people calling themselves the "Hansa" tower over the average citizen of the United States, Britain or Russia whilst the average dutch male stands 169.5 cm tall.

edited 17th Jun '16 9:10:40 PM by matti23

What if the Revolt of the Admirals didn't succeed?

Without the ability to properly respond to threats without resorting to Strategic Nuclear Bombing the Soviet Union might have had more success in the Cold War.

Rampage of the Tickle Me Elmo.

A Tickle Me Elmo was ISO Ted back to Alexander The Great's time. People were amazed by it's apparently magical nature and Alexander opted to take it on his campaign. He was found a few mornings later smothered with a pillow, the Tickle Me Elmo sitting upon it... cackling ominously.

People began to die rapidly after that, the Tickle Me Elmo found on the scene each time. A man was stabbed to death and the Tickle Me Elmo was found next to him with a sword. One of Alexander's generals was drowned, the Tickle Me Elmo sitting on his back.

Currently the death toll of the Tickle Me Elmo is 27. How was this happening? Besides the ISOT the Tickle Me Elmo had no supernatural ability... or did it?

edited 6th Aug '16 11:58:06 PM by matti23

Roughly how long would it take for a group of 10000 people to rebuild civilization? There's been an event, let's just call it the collapse. The survivors still collectively have a significant amount of knowledge and skills from the modern world, they just lack most of the tools needed to easily rebuild it. All they have are knives and enough rifles for 1 in 10 people with 200 rounds each.

edited 18th Aug '16 4:09:30 AM by Matm

Unless those are air rifles with their own pumps, those guns are basically a non-issue. They might keep a family fed for a year before the ammo runs out and only if every shot counts and there's plenty of large game. In fact, over hunting would be the primary limiting factor for a colony without tools for agriculture.

A lot is going to depend on what kind of resources are going to be available. Iron and Copper are of course valuable but domesticatible animals would provide a massive boost to manpower and food. Likewise, food crops are going to be essential to long term survival. Potatoes are more or less economic right out of the wild, if you don't mind eating clay to neutralize the toxins, but foods like corn and wheat took centuries to breed. Wild bananas are actually mostly seeds with little edible flesh.

You're probably going to loose a good chunk of the population to simple starvation in the first couple years. The population will need to spread out as agriculture develops.

That being said, you could probably be up to industrial standards in maybe five generations if you kept up with education and took very accurate notes.

edited 18th Aug '16 7:43:41 AM by Belisaurius

In this story there's an empire invading the many nations of the Great Plains (the colonies in North America never unified in this story). The empire has an double the tanks of the great plains coalition and each empire tank can defeat 2 tanks of the coalition. The empire, like the Mongols completely demands surrender from the cities of their enemies. If they refuse the city and its people are destroyed. Since we're dealing with tanks instead of horse archers, the empire is very well developed, has a technological advantage over the coalition and has the industrial capacity to keep its tanks supplied. The empire uses the dominance of their tanks to raid and destroy acres of farmland and any outlying infrastructure they can find.

The empire and the coalition have a similar industrial capacity but the coalition's population is 10 times greater than the empire's. In this situation can the coalition defeat the empire's advance? How would you recommend they do so? What tactics do you think the empire can use? Could bombarding a city with long range weapons eventually destroy enough of the defending population to allow the empire to take the city? Would they be able to effectively isolate the coalition's cities?

The technological level of the empire is in the 1950's but with no nuclear weapons.

edited 20th Aug '16 9:51:55 PM by zepv

Coalition can win. In fact, barring internal squabbles or traitors or other unfortunate incidents, Coalition will win. Those great industries? Well, good industries mean nothing if they don't get supplied by raw materials. And even today, tanks still in unadvatage in uneven terrain like hills and forest.

Starve them. Kill their supply lines. Drain their iron. Their alumunium. Their rubber. Their grain. Their oil.

They razes city that refuse to acquiscent? In Vietnam, that's practically invitation to "leave the city and boobytrapped everything and their mother as final Fuck You. Oh, and leaving guerrila snipers and saboteurs as additional souvenir".

The only way Imperial can win is by move fast, blitzkrieg style, secure resource points as fast as possible, fortify it while continue your offensive and harassing opposition. Don't give your opponent time to breath. Actually, rather than tank, weaponized APC and/or truck will be more prudent.

Also, as London Blitz and Serbian-Bosnian War shows you, simply bombing the city or shelling them isn't enough to force defender to surrender. Bonus point if they know surrender only bring certain death. You use bombing and shelling to support your ground troop, which then will scourge the city apart, one block at the time, until you can reasonably sure the city won't sucker punch you when you're not looking.

Urban warfare: nightmare of modern army.

On razing farmland: Except you're very, very sure that you can't get anything from it, better not, or at least, put very redundant restraint on it, except your goal is basically total genocide. After all, you can't make soldiers eat dirt, and it's pretty easy to just run farm overdrive (you gain food for some time) rather than razing it a few supplies, And Then What?

edited 20th Aug '16 1:46:35 AM by RBomber

Hmm. Good points Looks like the Coalition has a strong position.

If the population of the Empire is 20 million and the Coalition is 200 million, what kind of damage would result from this conflict? What effect would giving the Empire air dominance (twice as many jet fighters, each empire jet fighter is a match for two coalition jet fighters) have?

The Empire is convinced that the Coalition presents a existential risk to their civilization (the threat had actually passed a few generations ago). They are not there to take the Coalition's land but simply there to destroy enough of the Coalition's infrastructure and population to cripple their war fighting ability. They are not interested in taking land but rather denying it's resources to the Coalition.

There is a coalition city which sustained a 6 month long bombardment after which the besieging forces were called away. The city is a major manufacturing city, had a population of 4 million and several factories for producing armored vehicles and aircraft. What kind of offense would the city be able to mount against the Empire's forces in the area immediately after the siege was broken? How long would it take to rebuild its manufacturing capacity?

edited 21st Aug '16 1:48:25 AM by zepv

If the goal basically is to cripple Coalition, then, no, just military might simply not work. WW 2 (again) shows a very stong case for this: While Axis, initially, manages to steamroll into Yugoslavia and French, their occupation on there was nothing short of total b*ttf**k with oversized hot spiky metal rod in the *ss. Also, Vietnam and most attempt to occupy SE Asia. No, you do it Old Imperial Colonial Merchant Company style: Making friends, use them to undermine your enemies, creating instabilities, feeding insurgent, control their market, things like that.

Air power certainly helps, but the problems is that those planes still have to lands sometimes. Even on blimps, you need squad rotation, or at worst, ration supply. And like I said before, even as today, while very useful to destroy hardened targets and things like factories or shipment convoys or supply warehouses or weapon stockpiles and else, you can't declare yourself a winner until you stand proudly on their (ex)main bases, raises your flag, and saying "This land is mine" without any repercussion.

On post-bombardment: Quickest way to mount defense is basically using the entire city ruin as battleground and killzone, by creating sniper nest, boobytraps and the likes. Offense? Guerrila partisan cells.

Best way to arn your armies when industry crippled? With portable army weapons (assault rifles and SAW at maximum, maybe portable artilery), with explosives for hardened/ armored target. AM rifles might also work if you have factory and furnace to do that (titanium is a bit pain in the ass). Armor projection? Well, for the time being, you can cannibalize any chassis and engine you can find, slap some armor on it, and call it a day. No air support, though. Yet.

Also, you might find this useful:

I once wondered what would happen if the Second Reich invaded America. What would have to had happened to make such a thing possible? How long would such a war last?

That would depend on how you define Second Reich. You might mean our historical Second Reich or simply that it is a "territory of government of the German state". One of my timelines leans closer to the second definition in that it's a central European power which isn't OTL WWI era Germany which chose the name to draw parallels between itself and the Holy Roman Empire (the First Reich) although it is initially much smaller.

If we lean towards this second definition then we get more leeway with our stories. You could remove the WWI as we know it and have an alternate war in it's place where the Second Reich has more powerful allies such as Russia or Britain or both at once. This would make it a bit easier to launch an invasion of the USA (although it would still be a costly endeavour).

If you're going with the historical Second Reich you could what I did with another timeline. Have the standoff between France and Britain in 1898 over the Nile River and the Suez Canal become a war. This could lead to Britain allying with Germany in WW 1. Combine this with a Mexican-American war during the alternate WWI and an invasion could happen, so long as there is a reason for Germany to attack the USA. This could be due to the USA being persuaded by France to join the alternate WWI prior to the Mexican-American war.

edited 26th Aug '16 7:55:14 PM by Matm

IIRC, the Second Reich was the Holy Roman Empire. If it were to invade the US, we'd curbstomp all their knights!