Відео

So... without Spanish gold you might find the Ottomans inside Vienna rather than outside its walls. And that along with all the other changes that would mean for Europe may also have affected Spain.

Disagree entirely. If Henry V had lived and been crowned king of the joint kingdom, je would have extended English Law to all of his kingdom, including newly conquered France. The French never had Magna Carta, so if that became law in France, the whole game changes. If English bureaucracy was extended to France, that also is a game changer. You didn't think it through very well. You took a typical American anti-British attitude and forgot that English law is the basis of American law. As is English bureaucracy. Try again with these factors. 😊😊😊

Spain and England didn’t have a bad relationship, that is till Phillip put Elizabeth the first on the throne in order to avoid queen mary of the Scotts to take the throne. The unification of the peninsula was greatly affected by the kind of cold war fought by the Iberian union and England is a Habsburg was not in power there was no reason for Portugal to be supported by English interests and would likely still a single country today. The politics before 1848 didn’t have that nationalist tone. And the Iberian peninsula tried many times to unify before. Most likely without the Hapsburgs the would try to conquer north Africa

The extractive nature of the spanish empire? Dude, you are talking about the british, french and dutch Spain established universities, made indigenous languages official, and countries like Mexico, Argentina or Venezuela were among the most prosperous places on Earth right when independence happened LatinAmerica's problems started after independence, particularly in the XX century. The so-called "extractive" is the Quinto Real, where the King of Spain would get 1/5 (20%) of all the gold and silver from the americas, to fund his lavish wars in Europe The remaining 80% remained in the Americas, and was wasted by latinoamerican elites' corruptiom in the XIX and XX centuries

What do you mean by extracting nature, your are repeating all the time? Most of the wealth from the colonies stayed at the colonies, the finest craftsmen left mainland to pursue a better life at the other side, only mandatory taxes went back to mainland. I mean, you only have to go there and see by yourself the amount of majestic cities and huge infraestructure built from nothing. And compare it with africa or asian regions colonized by brits, dutch or french.

I reckon the Byzantines would still be set back by the Mongols more than you think. The Mongols would be motivated by the lure of rich cities.

Glad to see a new video

With adopting Gunpowder and Cannon first + navy, Egypt and the Levant would be recovered in teh 1600's. Easily. Also they had majority christian population until 1800s.

Miguel da paz, was likely to inherite the whole of iberia had he not died at a young age. And a king that was both Portuguese and Spanish would have united Iberia into the superpower it should have always been.

I know this is months down the line from when you posted this video, but there’s theories that the Carthaginians knew of the Sargasso Sea. The region of the Sargasso Sea was apparently talked about in a poem, maybe a bit of historical writing, from a 4th Century Roman writer. Apparently the writer talked about a place in the Atlantic that was nearly free of wind and was calm. This report, according to the writer, came from an earlier Carthaginian account.

This is very accurate as a egyptian Christian, except i think it's 20% not 10%

free greek konsantinupolis!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

It sounds like most of the alternate European languages would be related to basque, with loan words from Minoan, Etruscan, and certain other Middle eastern languages. Emerging empires may be founded by the Egyptians, Minoans, Carthaginians, and maybe even Dravidians from the East.

Amazing video! Can't wait for the next part!!

Another consequence of Mongol Empire not existing is there would be no complete sacking the city of Baghdad or the destruction of its great library (House of Wisdom) and death of most of its inhabitants same with the many cities in Mesopotamia and Persia, this level of devestation not happening would have led to the Islamic Golden Age not ending so abruptly.

the better timeline

You’re true there was really no Mongol Empire The whole thing was a scam

During the failed 3 invasions of Đại Việt, they introduced gunn-powdered weaponry to Vietnam, the ruling elite, the Trần Clan was impressed and pressed the weapon into service. We elevated the small handgun Tube-that-shot into a larger cannon, thus equipping the navy with this weapon en mass. The weapon that came as a shock to Đại Việt's navy and army proved to be great access to war. Nearly 80 years later, during the Champa-Đại Việt War (1367-1390), the last incursion, the 13 invasions of King Po Binasuor of Champa, was killed due to a concentrated cannon barrage onto his ship, location provided by a Cham Deserter. Without the Mongol Conquest and the subsequent Gun-pondered weaponry's introduction to Đại Việt, Việt Nam might not have been Việtic any longer but rather Chămic. In the year 1400, Trần Clan was usurped by Lê Quý Ly, he changed his family name back to Hồ(to honor his Chinese root), Changed the Country's name to Đại Ngu (to model after the Legendary King Yao), and Had his Firstborn son, Hồ Nguyên Trừng to develop a bigger and even less mobile cannon. Unfortunately enough, both were captured after losing the Ming-Đại Ngu war, Hồ Nguyên Trừng was employed by the Ming Court to perfect the Cannon into a more mobile weapon to use against later revolts by the Việt. In conclusion without the Mongol conquest, Việt Nam may not have been majority Kinh, but Chăm; the War against the Ming by Hồ Quý Ly would have been shorter, but later revolts would have been easier.

Perfect world

Please talk about the empires/civilizations that would survive if the Mongols didn't create their empire.

Really enjoyed the video!

I wonder if the lack of the Black Death, and thus a higher population pressure, might also provide a seperate benefit in later colonization efforts, namely being more settlers to send.

Amazing work as always, can’t wait for part two. This scenario is going to be interesting. I personally think that this will make countries like Persia, Russia, and china have a faster rise or become more powerful.

Thanks for the video! I always enjoy your videos as they keep it logical while diving deeper than other creators. Keep it up :)

cant wait for pt2

Love your content! Suggestion: What if Harold godwinson won the battle of hastings?

Apologies for the lengthy hiatus. I believe in the near future I will be able to work on my videos more consistently (life happenings), but only time will tell. I don't want to make any promises I can't keep. However, I love making these videos, and I'm very grateful for all of your support.

It’s not latin America, it’s Hispanic/ibero America

tbh in this timeline the romans reconquered anatolia would focus on recapturing Bulgaria,Mosiea ,crimera and then by Mid 1300s and early 1400s they would focus alot of effort in reconquering the levant,Egypt and Cyrenaica so they have alot more time to have colonies in this timeline of course if they close the slik road like in OTL

Fourth crusade could still happen salong as they elect not to and in the succession crise in the empire and is form against Venice that they will be repayed.

Fourth crusade could still happen salong as they elect not to and in the succession crise in the empire and is form against Venice that they will be repayed.

Romaboo Ramblings has probably the best video on this topic, though kudos to you, History's Influence, for anticipating him by two and a half years.

I fell like that my country would surely be better(Romania) And posibly Romania could unify earlier

the world is at peace without the religion of peace.

It was a migration in india. There was no invasion. IVC vanished before tha arrival of aryans

Even as a Muslims this is a very interesting timeline. Egypt and the Maghreb would become linguistically and culturally diverse with Latin, Greek, Coptic and Berber influence.

There's a downside that hasn't been considered. The Winged Hussars would have no need to arrive.

Eastern Roman Empire not Byzantium

IM FROM ALEXANDRIA

What if Ottomans had adopted the cult of Makima, Revy, Cutie Honey, Marin Kitagawa, Trixie Tang, Judy Neutron, Marge Simpson, Wendy Corduroy, Lois Griffin, Sailor Moon and Maddie Fenton instead of Abrahamic shit?

It is not a what if, it is an historical fact that the invented theory of Indo-European invasions never existed, because PIE people never existed.

I think this would have interesting effects on the Family Structures (or family systems) of the Indian Sub-Continent, Iranian Plateau and Europe

(1/2 - see reply) Watching this video again, a whole load of assumptions are made about the similarity of this timeline to the actual real world timeline, and I have to disagree. A Britain without the Anglo-Saxons would have been totally different to the Britain with the Anglo-Saxons. Here are my detailed thoughts on what it might look like. If the Anglo-Saxons never settled, this would be either because 1) the Britons and possibly Picts/Irish unite to defeat them, or 2) they never leave Germany/Scandinavia. 2) is highly unlikely as regardless of the pressures in their homelands, their populations would eventually grow to the point they seek out new lands. So the most likely scenario is them being defeated. This is possible, as the Britons were capable of defeating the Anglo-Saxons in battle (there were historical examples of this). It would however require a cultural change away from partition succession and towards a permanent high kingship of the Britons. It would also, crucially, require the Britons to see themselves as one people. This was something that could have happened, had a powerful British ruler ruled for long enough and created a permanent sense of Brythonic identity, but by no means would this have been easy. This would have happened only if the Britons saw themselves in contrast to an "other". For the sake of a hypothetical scenario, I will say that the Anglo-Saxons are the "other". The Britons in this scenario are sufficiently threatened by a specific Anglo-Saxon kingdom or leader to unite against them. So the Britons unite under a permanent high king and drive out the nascent Anglo-Saxon kings in the 5th/6th centuries. However unlikely this may seem, if the Anglo-Saxon threat had united into a single powerful kingdom early enough, and posed a threat in general to enough powerful Brythonic kingdoms, it is possible, and the only way I see the Anglo-Saxons not settling, due to their military superiority. The British would use sheer numbers to defeat the Saxons, they would in time absorb them into the British populations and take on some of their military traditions. Then it is assumed that the borders of the state of "Albion" (or Prydain) remain identical to modern day England, while the Picts inherit all of modern day Scotland. This is highly unlikely. A Brythonic high kingdom formed in the 5th/6th century would also count Strathclyde (which stretched from Dumbarton in modern day Scotland to possibly as far south as Lancashire in modern day England) and the area in lowland Scotland around Lothian. This is because these areas were post-Roman Brythonic kingdoms (Gododdin and Alt Clut). Therefore a hypothetical Brythonic high kingship would stretch from Cornwall to Edinburgh and would in time be able to dominate the Picts and absorb/annex them to the high kingship as a client state. Since the Picts are believed to have been possibly related to the Britons, they would just be seen as some sort of "wild cousins" and largely ruled, semi-autonomously, by a local Pictish elite that swore fealty from time to time to the high kingship. Whether the Irish are conquered depends on how stable and strong the institution of the high kingship is, and whether an ambitious ruler arises to actually invade Ireland. But it would certainly be possible. Britain was capable of supporting a population of several million during this time and an army of tens of thousands would be theoretically possible. Therefore, in the most plausible scenario in which the Anglo Saxons do not settle, the Britons come together under a high king permanently. Such high kingship would obviously be squabbled over by powerful factions/subkingdoms in periods when the Britons do not face an external threat. However such a high kingship would grow to become very powerful and wealthy if it were sustained, because it would essentially encompass the whole of Great Britain. Where this high kingship would be based would be interesting. London is actually possible due to much of the wealth being in the South East of Britain, but it isn't inevitable. Militarily some of the strongest kingdoms of the Britons were Gwynedd and Powys in modern day Wales/western England, the Old North kingdoms of Strathclyde and Rheged, and Dumnonia/Cornwall, all of which are in the West of Britain. The most powerful of these in the 8th-10th centuries sometimes called themselves "King of the Britons". So it's possible that one of these kingdoms could have been the permanent basis, or they could have chosen a base in the South East. As this video correctly observed, the Celts were Christian at this point. However, in a united Britain timeline, the specific Celtic elements of Christianity spread throughout mainland Britain, possibly influencing and being influenced by the Celtic Christianity in Ireland too. Therefore, Celtic Christianity is stronger relative to orthodox Catholicism in this timeline. More on this later. The Vikings would certainly raid Britain during the Dark Ages, as the High Kingship would not be able to send aid to remote settlements quickly enough to stop a successful raid. Whether they would attempt to invade and settle would depend on how strong the High Kingship was. If it was fragmented or destroyed for a period, they might invade successfully at first. But considering they were ultimately defeated by Wessex, led by Alfred the Great, in our timeline then a united Britain would likely see off the Viking threat. A united Britain - likely the only scenario in which the Anglo-Saxons do not settle and ultimately dominate Britain - would be far too strong for an army of raiders, far from home, numbering a few thousand to conquer, regardless of how skilled fighters they were. If the Vikings do actually attempt to invade a fully united Britain, they are defeated. If however the high kingship has been destroyed or broken down by this point, but the Anglo-Saxons have also been assimilated into the British societies, then the Vikings have a chance at initially conquering, but the recent memory of the high kingship would surely force the British kingdoms back into unification against the Vikings, as had been the case against the Saxons. An alternative scenario, and one quite likely, is that Vikings do not attempt to conquer large amounts of land, but settle and assimilate, adopting Brythonic language and culture and Celtic Christianity in return for land and military service, in a similar way to how they ultimately did with the Anglo-Saxon state. The video then makes assumptions regarding the Norman Conquest playing out as it did in our timeline. But I don't think this is likely. Instead I believe that Britain, if it remained united for long enough, would be potentially one of the strongest kingdoms in Europe by this point, matching the strength of the kingdom of France, albeit being less developed economically and militarily. It would have a huge population as the size of Britain and its isolation would make large scale wars unlikely and an invasion difficult. Therefore, rather than the Normans invading to seize the British throne, the French kingdom would likely be forced into greater unification to defend against threats from British raiders. This then accelerates the consolidation of the French state. The Bretons of course, do not migrate to France in this timeline or do so in lesser numbers, or even may have returned to Britain. The video subsequently goes on to talk about the reformation, as though the major cultural differences between the Britons and Anglo-Saxons would have had no impact on the development of Christianity over a period of about 500 years despite the absences of the Saxons from one of Europe's biggest and most prosperous regions. But it would have had a huge impact. Let's assume in one possible scenario that Britain does not being fully orthodox and become Catholic, which is a major assumption and very speculative indeed, since a nascent high kingship in Dark Age times would have benefitted greatly from Church support.

best timeline

5>11 year 2000 map is inacurate and isnt in accordance with the international law

AHH THE MIGGEST LIE IN HISTORY IS THAT BYZAINTIUM FELL IN 1453 IT FELL IN ACHEA

I find funny how some alternative history UA-cam channels, when they talk about Normandy, they forget 3 things: 1- Normandy was not a viking descendants majority land, only the nobility of Normandy had Nordic blood, hence, Normandy is just another aleatory duchy of France, with vikings having little influence in the local genetics, local language and even local culture. 2- People like to underrate the Anglo-Saxons just because the Normans won in our timeline. I will remind you all that in terms of military, Anglo-Saxon England was at least 5 times stronger than Normandy. Angland was one of the few united kingdoms in Europe without the problem of being divided into Duchys and Counties. The fact that the Anglo-Saxons lost to the Normans and Willian the Bastard was just because they had already fought the Norwegians in the North, and so, they were tired, they were in need to travel back fast to fight the Normans, and they being tired was an advantage to the Normans. With a little bit more of strategy, the Normans would be out of game just like the Norwegians. And so, same way that the Anglo-Saxons were capable of winning the Norwegians and Normans, so would be the Britons. 3- Normandy was still a vassal of France. When they tried a invasion in England, they were risking everything, and if England repelled the invasion and then decided to clash with France because of that "betrayal of diplomacy" that would mean that the history of France would change as a whole too.

Albion is a latin word derived from the greek name fro britain