Alternate history scenarios, ideas, general questions and miscellaneous points

The HRE was the First Reich! German Empire was the Second Reich!

What kind of damage would we see in the coalition post invasion? How many coalition citizens would be lost? At the very least starvation post war from a massive amount of lost farmland would create enormous amounts of losses.

In one of my alternate histories there is a conflict between an alternate United States and a power in Europe called the Hansa. If the whole conflict could be summed up by 3 words it would be "poor communication kills". Both sides were only in conflict because they believed that the other was out to get them. If the motives and plans of both sides were known, neither side would've been interested in conflict at all.

edited 24th Sep '16 12:13:45 AM by matti23

How likely would the reunification of Kievan Rus be if Genghis Khan is butterflied away?

One question about the following world:

In an alternate world another nation completes it's nuclear weapons program in the 1940's. This is the first time the world becomes aware that nuclear weapons are viable and is when the United States begins a program to build their own. Some of our protagonists are a group of people working for this program.

The power block dominating the world at the time does not support this action and has placed political pressure and embargoes on the United States in order to halt or stop the program. All of the US's allies either are not pursuing these weapons or are subject to similar restrictions. In that world the Mississippi is the US's is the western border. The US's only allies are Russia (which now has the Volga River as it's eastern border) and a Unified South America, Central America and Caribbean. If that last nation sounds unstable, that's because it is. The entire empire lasts for less than 16 years and spends the entire time fighting resistance movements from it's own people. After it collapses and it replaced by a myriad of nations who are all hostile to the US.

How likely would it be that this project would take 60 years to complete (from when the government finds out nuclear weapons are viable and starts the program to the construction of its first weapon)?

edited 4th Nov '16 11:16:43 PM by Matm

Actually, there's another question. Who build the nuclear weapon first, and why said entities doesn't just conquer everyone else?

Because the only polity that I can imagine to build such weapon on that era is The 3rd Reich, and they're not exactly the paragon of niceness or sanity (read:real Fallout-verse, Ho!)

And why other bug polity doesn't just built their own version? Even during Cold War, tech stealing can happen rather... often, with each polity develop better, bigger, more efficient weapon....

An alt-history idea I had was one where the US had better relations with the Native American nations and instead of conquering most of them annexed them in a manner more similar to Hawaii. I'm just not sure what would make this happen, though.

I think the British did that with the Maori as well.

A plague killed off 90% of the American Indian population. Previous to this Europeans had a much more difficult time expanding westwards into North America. Just butterfly away this plague, maybe there's been prior contact with another culture, they had a similar plague and they've recovered prior to first contact with Europeans?

The point of divergence is pretty far back. In this timeline the dominant power block are a coalition of European colonies that have broken away from the authority of their home countries. The war of independence became a world war that crippled the nations of Europe. In the following years the coalition conducted an extensive rebuilding program in Europe and ran propaganda campaign to make what's left of the European governments more afraid of a third power block than they are of them. The third power block is comprised of Russia (who wasn't involved in the world war) and the colonies that decided not to join the coalition.

The coalition isn't really interested in conquering the world at that point. They're really just interested in defending their own turf and their status as the most powerful faction in the world. They're content just to contain any potential threats to their status. The third power block is only considered a threat if they develop nuclear weapons.

You may have a point about the United States' faction stealing the weapon tech. I may just change the story so they develop it too and have a nuclear standoff scenario.

In the future of the timeline there's a Civil War in the United States. About 5 sides are vying for power, one of which is funded and equipped by the coalition. The coalition intends to split up the United States to make them easier to contain. The coalition has no official army in the US and isn't officially supporting any side in the conflict. They do have a small amount of "shadow army" units in the US though. These are personnel who are officially disavowed by their government. The official stance is that they will be arrested if they return home. The cover is pretty thin and some US citizens have taken to attacking coalition assets around the world as revenge.

If both sides now have nuclear weapons what is a likely scenario where a nuclear war is averted and the entire conflict is fought conventionally? In the current version of the timeline the coalition supported rebels do lose but they do quite a significant amount of damage. At their peak the coalition supported rebels take the capital and a 10th of the country.

edited 8th Nov '16 8:08:31 PM by Matm

Just like in RL: Minimal deployment that end massive conflict (gave everyone preview of their power) and several development cycle try to improve and upstage each other, while also tempered by fear, common sense and realpolitik. Of course, just like in RL, this was rather tenuous, and it was practically a miracle that we don't end up in post-Fallout world, especially the fiasco in Soviet warning system and Cuban Crisis.

What is the maximum population that Siberia could support? How about the American great plains?

Hard to say. The US's agricultural land is actually underutilized. We could probably grow two or three times our current crop and sustain it indefinitely with fertilizers. I'm not even sure how many people the Great American Breadbasket actually feeds and that's only a tiny corner of the North American Plains. A rough estimate would be something like a trillion people but take that with salt.

Siberia is even harder to estimate simply because of how empty it all is. Vast swaths are entirely uninhabited or only occupied by nomadic groups. It does suffer from seasonal freezes so I'd call it as half of what the Great American Plains can produce even accounting for size.

How badly weakened would the nations of the world have to be in order for Australia to begin expanding into either Asia, South America or Africa in the 1800s? Could it be done with anything less than an apocalyptic plague that happens not have mostly spared Australia? The time period is in the 1800's but the Point of Divergence is roughly 600 years ago so you can include changes that vastly increase Australia's population or change the populations around them.

I was currently thinking of having a timeline where multiple World Wars in that world devastate the global economy with the currency in many nations becoming worthless, much like Germany after World War 1. Nations around the world start to collapse. Australia is not involved in these wars and is less affected than the other nations of the world. The Australians would be like Vikings, raiding the weakened nations or forcing them to pay for protection. They might build an occasional settlement outside the Australian continent.

Southeast Asia in this timeline has 30 bickering nations. South America and Africa are each divided up into 50-80 states.

What kind of fleet composition from the 1800's might be best for the Australian raider fleets? Everybody is in the same boat with a collapsed economy but refuse to work with each other or help each other defend themselves against raider attack due to distrust and grudges from the war. How long might it take before the nations of the world begin to reach the level where they could defend themselves against raider attack or start establishing empires?

edited 1st May '17 4:45:23 AM by zepv

Australia has never had any territorial ambitions and lots of living space. For the most part, they're part of the British Commonwealth so they're effectively part of the British Empire.

You'd basically need for the British Empire to fall centuries before and even then there's no real drive for Australia to go a'conquering.

Thanks for the prompt reply.

The wars that crippled the nations of the world have destroyed all the empires of the world, including the British Empire. So far in the timeline I've had the last of the World Wars end a few decades before Australia decides to venture forth. Why would the British Empire need to fall centuries beforehand?

The Australia in this timeline is very different from our timeline. It gained independence from Britain via a prisoner revolt and its government was derived from violent gangs who seized control of the country. Don't think of the alternate Australia has our world's Australia. It's closer to what happens if you hand control of a country to the Bloods and the Crips. You're dealing with a hyper violent, hyper aggressive and expansionist nation that uses fear as a weapon.

They expand not because they want more living space, but because it is an expression of power over others and brings them prestige. They also view taking the resources and riches from neighboring countries easier than mining those resources themselves.

edited 14th Jul '17 7:12:11 AM by zepv

Pre-refrigeration businessmen in New York shipped and sold ice around the world. I was wondering how plausible it would be to have the indigenous nations of New Zealand become rich in the 14th to 15th century environment by sending expeditions south to where ice can be harvested in large amounts, then exporting it northwards into markets in Asia? Might be particularly profitable during northern hemisphere summer. How rich might these nations get?

I'm assuming the area is in contact with other nations to the north and there has been cultural and technological exchange. Pre establishment of the ice trade I'm wondering why traders from northern Australia and Asia might consistently travel to New Zealand? Would they be able to amass enough wealth at this stage to start the ice expeditions? What might they base their economy and trade on beforehand?

If you're wondering northern Australia has been integrated into the Asian trade routes and been subject to cultural and technological exchange. It bases its economy around mining and agriculture and as of the 15th century is at an above average level of development for the Asian region.

edited 22nd May '17 2:24:10 AM by zepv

If we have a point of divergence some time in the late 1200's, how prosperous and powerful could Madagascar get?

Not very, Madagascar doesn't have much in terms of land or natural resources and isn't a major trading hub as long as the middle east remains open.

England got powerful because of the vikings passing by to get to Iceland, Greenland, and the rest of Europe and it's fertile southern lands. Madagascar is only about 6 percent arable and doesn't have a source of iron.

Sounds like good points.

Got another question. If we open up the western coast of North America to trade from Asia in the mid 1300's and allow cultural and technological exchange to happen, how long would it be before the nations there would be about par with the average nation in Asia (in current draft 60 years)? How long would it be until the nations on the east coast caught up with those on the west coast (in current draft 100 years)? How long would it take until the nations in South America start to catch up with the west coast nations of North America (in current draft 100 years)?

In the timeline diseases travel into North America via the trade routes and result in a plague which kills off about 90% of the population. How long would it take for these nations to recover from that if a) their trade partners provide aid and b) nobody from outside the continent invades their land afterwards? In my current draft the population took 150 - 200 years to completely recover.

Trade is also opened up from Asia to the south east coast of Africa and technological development spreads from that point of contact until nations on the west coast have caught up with the average nation in Asia. How does this affect European expansion? Does it completely stop it, keeping the European nations within Europe?

In my story the Europeans attempt to expand and have difficulty gaining significant amounts of territory as most nations in Africa and the Americas have comparable technology to them. The nations of the world are still as divided as they are usually and some European nations realize that if they work together they can start to pick them off one by one and play them against one another. An alliance is formed and territory is seized. Not all nations in Europe go along with the plan, but once those in the alliance gain a significant amount of land most of those that did not join the alliance cannot complete with those that did and are absorbed into the alliance nations.

If it became apparent that in their current state that a) they would never expand beyond Europe to any significant degree b) this would leave the entire European region a minor player in global community and c) there was immense wealth to be gained by forming a alliance, could any significant amount of the European nations in the mid 1500's agree to work together or would they still be too divided?

edited 30th May '17 10:54:10 PM by Matm

Going to toss a few (well more than a few actually) out here:

• William the Norman loses at Hastings.
• Admiral Yi Sun-sin is killed at the Battle of Sacheon (OTL he was wounded in the arm).
• Horation Nelson is blinded in both eyes.
• Isambard Kingdom Brunel dies in the tunnel flood in 1828 (he very nearly drowned OTL).
• John Wilkes Booth pistol misfires and Lincoln lives.
• The Dogger Bank Incident leads to Britain joining in the Russo-Japanese War.
• The damage RMS Titanic picks up from the collision isn't enough to sink it.
• Franz Ferdinand's driver is given the correct directions to the hospital in Sarajevo, so FF survives the day.
• Hitler is killed in the Beer Hall Putsch.
• Chamberlain says 'no' at Munich.
• Rommel is wounded/killed at Arras by a bullet.
• Hitler is killed in 1943 on the flight to Smolensk
• Yuri Gagarin's capsule has a critical failure, and he dies in space.
• The Cuban Missile Crisis turns hot.
• Jack Ruby is stopped before shooting Lee Harvey Oswald.
• The crew of Apollo 13 dies.
• Mark Hamill suffers serious injury in his car crash.
• Ronald Reagan is killed by John Hinckley Jr.

Most of these are fairly small changes that could nevertheless have big impacts on history.

edited 31st May '17 9:48:54 PM by MattII

Yu Shun-shin's death at 1st Sacheon would mean that Korea looses the Imjin war.

In my timeline there a concept called "World Unification" that several nations are attempting, although whether they have the ability to do this is a different matter entirely. This is different from World Conquest in that it requires the governments of the world to be part of a single power block, not a single empire. A government is considered to "represent" that part of the world if they can project their power there to a reasonable extent, so the task is still considered complete if some of the governments do not have popular support but rebellions against them are sufficiently weak.

Would it be possible for any nation in history unify the world in this way?

edited 3rd Jun '17 10:50:24 PM by Matm

Sounds like something that would be attempted by a modern nation-state. I suppose if you came up with some justification, it could be attempted post Seven-Years War, if the colonial Empires involved ended up fighting for much longer than Seven Years (so they'd presumably call it the Ten-Years War instead) and decided to throw in the towel. I don't think that would truly fit what you're going for, though, since the majority of the world covered by the power bloc belongs to one of the massive Empires of the day (likely Britain, France, Spain, Portugal, the Netherlands or Russia).

But it could get a bit closer to what you're thinking if this state of affairs continued into the modern day and some equivalent of decolonisation happens, with the new governments of the independent states being treated as equals to their former overseers, enabling them to elect delegates in the world government, and so forth. Kind of like an expanded European Union.

May as well share my own alt-history idea here. At the peak of their power in the mid-13th Century, the Mongols cross the Bering Strait and land in Alaska, bringing chinese gunpowder and Bubonic Plague with them. The plague, unfamiliar terrain, weather conditions, lack of what they'd consider decent infrastructure, no knowledge of local culture and the fracturing of the main Mongol Empire later on severely delay their efforts to conquer North America. It takes them a century to reach Lake Michigan, by which time the natives have recovered from the plague and are able to fight them on equal terms.

The Mongols are able to conquer and absorb them regardless, but this, too, takes them a while. Their progress is only halted in the early-to-mid 15th Century, when they're stopped at the gates of Tenochtitlan by the Aztecs, who, seeing the looming threat of Mongol conquest, scrambled to revolutionise their society, abandoning human sacrifice and forming an alliance with the Incas. Europe gets involved later, but that's another story.

Is it plausible that it'd take the Mongols that long to conquer North America? Or perhaps I'm overestimating them and they wouldn't be able to pull that off at all?

edited 4th Jun '17 6:17:52 AM by PresidentStalkeyes

I've been looking at a lot of alternate history ideas, one involving psychics and such.

But here's a question, how different would the world be if in the late 1920s, artificially intelligent humanoid robots were built and became interactive in human society.

Building up from that to the 80s. What about life would be different?

On the basis of 'let's run a mile before we know how to crawl' (the field effect transistor, or FET, was only patented in 1926, and their workings weren't understood until much later), I'm going to say that the world will be so different by the mid '30s that trying to go much further will be just blundering about in the dark.

edited 13th Jun '17 1:54:55 AM by MattII