I doubt that Italy would have been promised that much land and that the Central Powers offensive would go that well. I think that Italy was still too weak for a victory to be achieved that early and dominance over all of North Africa seems a bit much. I could see Italian involvement leading to a Central Powers victory in 1918 with more conservative land gains in Tunisia, Corsica, Nice, Savoy, Malta, and some Saharan territory alongside protectorate in Albania and maybe a bit more territory by the Austrians then just Trentino & Trieste. I think that Italian involvement could have still been delayed to 1915 as Italy was very opportunistic and would likely demand more concessions from Austria before joining.
8:10 that(Romania) is unrealistic and doesn't take in consideration the secret pact between Romania and the Central Powers that basically made Romania part of the alliance. One of the main reason why Romania stayed neutral in the first 2 years was because of Italian Neutrality. Chances are that if Italy joins the Germans so will Romania either immediatly or just in time to take Bassarabia back.
Not to mention that, by that point, the Entent were already set to lose in the timeline. Paris had already fallen. Why would Romania bother joining in?
This maybe unlikely but, I think if Romania joined the Central Powers in addition to Bessarabia they could have finagled an agreement to take Crimea as, 1) a province, 2) a protectorate, and 3) in a personal union with King Ferdinand of Romania by proclaiming Crown Prince Carol as Grand Khan of Crimea without taking any coastal areas from Ukraina.
@@carterbentonjr399 well he could also claim "the ancestral mildavian territories on rhe left(east) side of the river Dnister" considering that in the past the romanian presence was more significant in the south-west part of Ukraine,having many romanians be cossacks back then and many ruling in some parts. Of course that is before the imperial russian colonisation of the region with russians and ukrainians(from up north) (edit) just to be clear i don't think that would have happened, even the most revisionists,jingoists and expansionist nationalists talk about "de la Nistru pân la Tisa"(From Nister to Tisza) worst case scenaria, besides today with Bugeac and N.Bucovina the most extreme would also want Pocuția/Pokutia.
@@Kkkokpit might have given Fiume and Zara at most, or just been like yo tough luck what are you gonna do switch sides? And then Italy wouldn’t promptly switch sides and try to get France and England to immediately rearm
I could see them gaining back Nice and Savoy from the French. Then then given Corsica and maybe Tripoli. Probably British Somaliland. At the very least. I think the bulk of Italian gains would be colonial.
Tbh, I don't think Italy would have captured much in Africa, since Italy being in the central powers would not change the fact that the British still had the largest navy in the world and would have easily defended any naval invasion.
@@mrsillytacos That being said most likely Italy takes Tunisia as they planned to in the late 1800s but France beat them to it. As for Algeria and Morocco, Italy after discussing it with Germany let France keep Algeria but make Morocco independent under joint Italian and German influence. As for Spain, kind of establishes a protectorate over Aragon, Catalonia, and Valencia but annexes the Baleric Islands just to somewhat hem in France. Then there is the Ottoman Turkish Empire. Italy has a secret agreement with Germany that if the Ottoman Turks should balkanize that Italy would get Antioch and Smyrna but Syria, Lebanon, Kurdistan Assyria will be independent, with Thrace going to Bulgaria and Constantinople as a free city under the oversight if Bulgaria, plus the central Agean Coast of Turkey going to Greece to keep them quiet and add the City of Trebizond on Turkey's Black Sea coast as a protectorate.
@@mrsillytacos p.s. As for Palestine, Italy with a lot of fast talking lets the U.K. take control of it to establish a Jewish State, but as in this time line splits off Ammon, Moab, and Edom, to establish the Kingdom of Jordan, additionally takes Gaza and the surrounding desert as an independent state.
Very interesting scenario. I suspect Italian involvement wouldn't be quite so decisive in 1914/1915. They started the war with an army of just 300,000. They eventually mobilized 5 million men (their population was just slightly smaller than France but with a fraction the industrial capacity they took time to equip). The Alps are terrible to attack through and I don't see an Italian breakthrough there in 1914 as likely. The German offensive stalled due to logistical issues as much as Allied resistance. The deadlock on the western front would probably still have eventuated (though perhaps a little deeper into France/Belgium). Given Allied naval superiority, a swift conquest of Italian Libya is more likely than the Central Powers taking Egypt. Regardless, by 1917 I can see a decisive difference. Without the Italian front, 60+ Austrian (and a few German) divisions are freed up for use elsewhere. Russia collapses in 1917 (if not sooner). If Romania still joins the Allies she is overrun even more swiftly and chances are there's never much of a Macedonian Front. Central Powers troops could have reinforced the Ottomans to halt their slow retreat from the Middle East. By early 1918, in our reality, the Germans achieved a narrow advantage of 192 to 178 divisions on the western front. Here, things would be decisively more lopsided. With Italy now fully mobilized on the Alps and probably both fronts reinforced by the Austrians, it would have been closer to 300 to 178. France would have capitulated by mid-1918 for sure. Even with American help this balance could not be righted and I suspect we'd have an armistice in 1919 or later where the British let the Central Powers dominate Europe in return for keeping the rest of their empire.
I think Italy wouldn't gain Algeria and Morocco,as they had almost no interest in it,and Italy probably wouldn't seek to rebuild the Roman Empire, since that idea derived from the Fascists, especially Mussolini.They also probably wouldn't attempt to conquer Greece, instead limiting themselves to imposing a sphere of influence on them. As for the Ottomans? They probably won't clash with them except for conflicting interests in Africa and the Balkans. I'd imagine Italy also taking Sudan instead of Algeria and Morocco since they desired it alongside Egypt. Speaking of Egypt, I doubt Germany would desire the Suez Canal or ANY kind of control in the Mediterranean as they already have 2/3 allies in it. Of course, this could be disproved by the fact that Germany could imitate Britain and crave for control in both the land and the sea. As for answering the question of Italy joining the Allies or staying in the Central Powers, I think Italy would stay in the Central Powers as the Britain and France would probably also be angry at Italy and I don't think Italy would have interest in coming to blows with the Germans, but, yet again, this could also be disproven. Great video,man! 😄 As an Italian (especially a pro-Central Powers one) I was very excited for this video!
@@SaimonTMquell'idea era stata fatta popolare da Mussolini, quindi non penso che il re volesse riformare l'impero a meno che avesse i territori necessari
@@GigaRomandurante tutto il risorgimento i richiami a Roma, alla sua gloria sia come repubblica e impero, erano tantissimi. L'idea di un'italia unita sia geograficamente che culturalmente se, non ci fosse stata Roma, non esisterebbe e quindi è naturale che l'Italia, in un modo o in un altro, finisca sempre con l'ambire all'impero. Pensa che uno dei progetti dell'italia era di ristabilire il "mare nostrum" e quindi il controllo su tutto mediterraneo. Prima il concetto era militare, ma anche oggi persiste in forma commerciale
@@Seeno__ Sì, ma c'è una differenza fra Roma come Domina Provinciarum (ovvero l'Italia come nazione e terra dei romani+italici) e dell'impero come possedimenti coloniali. L'Italia con il punto sui romani, da sempre ha ricordato la propria unione socio-culturale, non la legittimità di controllare tutti i territori coloniali dell'Impero Romano.
Italy joining the war on the German side could have changed the battle of the marne just by it (Italy) opening another front for France and making some of the fronts for the central powers easier to deal with. No the Italians would not have done well themselves in any battles, most likely needing German support just like Austria-Hungary did, but by existing alone and being on the side of the central powers they could have indeed made the capture of Paris more possible and thus maybe even the fall of France itself. Anything after that though is within the realm of imagination.
You'd be surprised, we were more ready to go against France than Austria-Hungary. Even in late 1914 the main part of the army was stationed near italo-french border
The Alps are insanely defensible, there’s a reason why Italian offensives there in early WW2 were stopped with a few hundred French soldiers. Given this is WW1 I don’t think it’d lead to a collapse in the video. Other things would change. Africa is more of a front that Britain must defend and Austria-Hungary can position its troops decisively against Serbia and Russia instead of a three way split.
@@MarioSchlemmer-s5k ??? Truly Astro-Hungary destroyed the Russian army in 1915, right? I'd ask what you are even talking about but a better question would be what colour the sky in your world is. Enjoy your day.
@@MarioSchlemmer-s5k Fine. Italy would have conquered France and then the rest of Europe I guess. I mean doesn't explain Italy's complete reliance on the French and British or that even the Austro-Hugariansk could hold them on the Alps but whatever. Though according to you the superpower of Austria-Hungary really would have won WWI, at least if they hadn't been held back by those Germans in so idk. You don't seem to remotely understand the amount of aid/support/troops certain countries got from others but whatever reply in any way you want I hereby proclaim you King of the comments. Huzzah.
This would probably mean more centralization of Spain (Spain wasn't a nation at that time, but more like a region🇪🇦🇵🇹), more wars focused in the mediterrean and northern Africa instead of central Europe. Probably the culture and organization of the unified state would be developed differently (not so many bankrupcy of the state). After all, Charles I of Spain (and V of Germany) accession to the throne changed Spain and the empire a lot.
@@ivangasconmora1059 This is along the lines of what I've been theorizing as well. I suppose the wars in the Mediterranean would in particular mean a prolonged rivalry with the Ottomans, whereas less Spanish involvement could mean a lot of changes for the HRE - in particular the Low Countries and the Habsburgs - just as it could mean avoiding some disastrous entanglement for Spain. Portugal becoming, and staying, part of Spain would certainly change things as far as the colonies of the two as well. But I really just started with the idea of a timeline where Spain is more or less a hegemonic power up until the 19th century, and this seemed like the most plausible point of divergence from which to get there. Thus the timeline requires also that the French never eclipse a stronger Spain on the continent, and that the inclusion of Portugal in the union helps Spain remain the dominant colonial power much longer. But at that point the divergence goes so far that I won't even pretend to know what the world would look like, so at this point I'm just using it as an excuse to include whatever other interesting scenarios I can think of.
@@SootShade I think Spain would have been the hegemonic power in europe until the 1700 when France would take that position. And the Spanish Empire would be the richest and strongest in other continents and through the seas until the Napoleonic Wars. After that, it would just remain as a powerful colonial nation during the 19th and 20th century. Maybe Germany would be stronger or maybe not if the hasburg mantains the title of emperor or if other dinasty takes over.
There's a lot of potential for HRE, and later Germany, to look very different in a timeline where Spain doesn't get as involved in the region. Who knows whether the Habsburgs would survive as a dominant force without a strong ally in Spain, and who might take over if they don't. The map of a unified Germany could also look very different, such as possibly including much of the Low Countries. As for France, I'm thinking that, for my slightly fanciful timeline to work, the whole state might have to get neutered, if not outright collapse, early on. I don't know how exactly that might happen, but otherwise it's indeed a little hard to see how France doesn't eventually become the dominant power in Europe.
I highly doubt that after the war Italy would gain more land form Austria-Hungary, especially all the coast basically. It just doesn't make sense why they would give up territory post war. While the negotiation in the alps are realistic, and I think could've played out, I doubt AH would cede Trieste as it was the major port for the k.u.k. marine. Besides that the push into France was realistic IMO, as Germany almost had Paris in our timeline. But i don't see why with Italy on the central powers side they would do better against the Russians. The north Africa front was important too, but I doubt that besides capturing Egypt with the ottomans, they would have such an easy time pushing the entente out. All in all, good video and keep up the work
If AH didn't cede Trieste to Italy the latter probably wouldn't join the Central Powers. This happened IRL as AH offered Italy Trento in exchange for neutrality in the war,but Italy wasn't satisfied and also asked for Trieste,and AH refused.
No major power would give up their coast line also Treiste was Austrias main trade port of the empire and the Empires most important Military naval base in the empire there is no scenario exept a military defeat where austria would give up the city
Ramania was part of the central powers until the war began, carol the 1st wanted romania in the war in order to take basarabia back but the crown council declined ,in this timeline romania would have joined the war early againt the entente
@@Videntis.History Down vote as soon as I saw the USUAL "Italy's betrayal" didn't bother with the rest of this BS video. The AUSTRIANS betrayed the Alliance and their similar cousins Germany betrayed Italy AGAIN in WW II breaking the Pact of Steel promising Italy 3 years to prepare then invading Poland only 4 months later WITHOUT notifying Mussolini, dragging an unprepared Italy into WW II. ANOTHER biased video on Italy full of LIES, like 99% of all those on YT.
Love your Channel man! Suggestion: What if Napoleon III had won the Franco-Prussian War and then arrenged for his son to marry Princess Beatrice, forging closer ties to the UK?
Trieste and Trentino, are totally possible for the Austrians to cede, even if trieste is their most important Harbor, they stll had Pola and other harbors to expand their trade, and naval importance, but more than that, its just impossible for them to cede, first of all the dual monarchy would never give up its dalmatian coast, because they need acces to sea, to be considered a great power, and second of all, they for sure will not let italy get that much land in north africa, something more realistic, are just Egypt, and tunisia, completing an italian corridor through africa to their colonies, in the horn of africa, allowing a later invasion of ethiopia, and completing the italian colonial proces
Exactly! Even if Italy had performed as well as they did in this scenario there is no way the Austrians even under German pressure would essentially give up their entire coast!
I see a bit of problems in this scenario. First, I doubt that Italy could have this much effect on the French front. By seeing what happen with the weaker Austrian army in the real timeline and also what happened in the Second World War on the french front the impact of an Italian offensive would be very little. Second Austrian, Italian and Ottoman Navies were way weaker than French and English one, so Mediterranean domination is also problematic and without naval supremacy invasion of Corsica and North Africa could have had problem. Also France and UK have many more troops in Africa than Italy. Ottoman got defeated in real timeline also so wouldn't be so much of an help. Third, the territorial gains of Italy are too generous. If Italy would win, aslo Ottoman would win, seems unlikely they wouldn't want some of their old possession back in Africa. Austria giving Italy the balkanic coast is science fiction. Also Italy had an hard time to control only Libia at the time, it seems hard that they would able to occupy al north Africa and also forcefully occupied Suez Canal against Germany. For the rest nice entertain video and nice quality.
Your Content is so Good. Here's some more Great War AH Ideas: What if the Ottomans joined the Entente? What if Spain had joined the Central Powers? What if Britain Joined the Central Powers? What if Belgium had allowed Germany to move it's troops through their country? What if Austria Hungary had left the war in 1916? What if The Netherlands Joined either the Central Powers or the Entente? What if Japan had joined the Central Powers? What if Bulgaria joined the Entente? What if The Great War hadn't escalated? What if Germany scrapped the Shlieffen plan and invaded Russia? What If Khedive Abbas of Egypt had Joined the Central Powers? What if The United States had joined the Central Powers? What if Afghanistan Joined the Central Powers?
I always enjoy discussing possible different historical outcomes. As to this one, I think Italy lacked the military and industrial capabilities to make the large gains predicted in the video. The main impact of Italian troops attacking France instead of Austria, as discussed, would be the Schlieffen Plan probably working because of France diverting troops to the south, and Austria Hungary doing better against Serbia and Russia because no troops were required against Italy. Italian gains would probably have been Savoy, Corsica, Tunisia, Malta, Cyprus, and Egypt in addition to the Austrian concessions Italian speaking South Tyrol and Trieste.
Sorry for the delay with the videos. The original file got corrupted so I had to restart the entire thing, if there are any animation mistakes I am sorry I also launched a discord server if you are interested: discord.gg/t4KWnJQC4S
Upset at the Romania mistake, but we move. I do prefer detailed ultrarealistic development of events after the trigger event(s) that the scenario is based on. Looking forward to a future remake. PS: You know those videos "What if everything went perfectly for X in [historical period]"? Romania did get one of the best story arcs and results by the very end of it all in our timeline. PPS: My mind can't get the grasp of how much of a "crossroad of destiny" ww1 was. That's why it's the best period for what if scenarios.
*"Yo Videntis, nice new name"* *"Can't wait for that Horn of African Adal Alternate History, What if Adal unified the horn if Africa and* *spread across east Africa reach coastal south africa and colonizing the great lakes"* 🤔🤔🤔
Good video, but I feel like you kind of forgot about the existence of the Senussi Order during WW1 with how easily they walked through North Africa and took over Egypt before 1916. I also doubt that the Italian and Ottoman fleets would be able to just kick the Royal Navy out of the Mediterranean like they did in the video, since the British navy was double or triple the size of the Italian and especially Ottoman navies in 1914 if I'm remembering correctly. While I still think the Central Powers probably would have won if Italy joined their side, it wouldn't have been as much of a cakewalk as it was made out to be in the video and Italy definitely couldn't have walked away with all of North Africa under it's control. Still a very well made video, though. Keep it up.
I think Malta should also have been mentioned for a bit, had Italy sided with the Central powers, they would have tried taking Malta, with the island serving as "the nurse of the Mediterranean" in reality, the Italian attempt (maybe even successful attempt) to take the Maltese islands would have impacted the entente troop's medical wellbeing because since Malta served as a base to heal wounded troops, the Italians taking the island would lead to the Entente's medical wing struggling more, leading to their troops taking longer to recover and more rushed medical infrastructure having to be built, costing the Entente further budget and potential land for war factories.
I love how you cover both modern and ancient Western history, the first video I watched was the Athens one and it was aesthetically great and content rich even though I didn’t know much on the topic. maybe expand to early-modern history as well 🤓
Even it bit too unrealistic, it good nonetheless to explain what if italy joining central power instead of entente power. If you instead focus what entente had promise to Italy and they break it, you will know that the central power will do the same or similar to it. No Power that will give up large amounts of territory for appease one nation when still need to balance out the power. If Italy get that territory then the alliance will break immediately and the hostility between two nation begin.
@@Videntis.History I think your videos are already really good. Its just with this one that Italy gained too much land. I would feel like they would be promised Savoy, Nice, Corsica, Tunisia, Jubaland, rest of Libya and potentially a bit further into Egypt or Algeria. And Greece was in ww1 so italy might also take some territory from them that Venice used to own
This feels way too much like a WW2 scenario. France would've likely surrended if the war went so badly early on, and I don't see how Germany would be able to make such massive gains on Russia. The partition of Africa in this timeline is totally unrealistic as well.
What if władysław III survive the battle of Varna What if Louis of Anjou and his wife Yolande (daughter of John I) became King and Queen of Aragon What if Gaston De Foix survived the battle of Ravenna What if Charles the Bold turned Burgundy into a kingdom
Beautiful video is very interesting if Italy had sided with the forces of the central powers. but there is an error in the map at point 3.39 on the city you wrote it wrong, it's not Treiste but Trieste. This is not a criticism but simply a correction. Anyway you gained a new follower haha
U're giving the italians much more credit than they deserve. I think they would've helped but not to this degree. For example they probably would've got stuck in the alps.
As an Italian I think perhaps it would have been convenient for us to support the Central Powers, IF Austria hadn't proved to be a treacherous and unreliable ally
@@alphaeins6560was it not worth it to win the war? And not really, the territories Italy asked for had already italian culture and a majority of italian speaking people, just like the majority of the already collapsing Austro-hungary who had litterally too many different ethnic groups to be a single country.
@@alphaeins6560 doesn't change anything i've said in the previous comments dude, Savoy and Corsica didn't have a majority of italian speaking population nor italian culture. Austro-Hungary was destined to collapse.
Can we get a video series continuing what if italy United in 1444. What if 1444 alternatw Italian Colonialism. What if 1444 Italy joined triple entente and allies in ww1 and ww2.
Here the thing, my part 2 to the Alexander video did bad, so I don't plan on making any part 2s unless the videos do really well, but that was my favorite video and I may do a part 2 to it at some point in the future. I don't know when, but I can promise you it will be made at some point, just not soon.
Yea this scenario leaving austria hungary basically landlocked prob would not have sat to well with them. I could see a-h becoming bitter for being screwed as italy did in OTL. Possibly joining britain, france, and russia in what im guessing would be another war.
I think this video is too generous to Italy. It is much more likely that they would have gained Tunisia, Corsica, Upper Savoy and Nice from France, not huge swathes of ethnically Occitan land including major cities like Lyon and Marseilles. Furthermore, a ceding of the Dodecanese islands and Dalmatian coast from the Ottomans and Austria respectively seems very unlikely, as they had already been generously compensated with French lands, and Germany would see no reason to pressure their allies into giving up land in Italy (other than the initial ceding of Trentino and Istria in 1902). Lastly, I think it is far more likely Egypt would be brought into the German sphere as an independent state, as Italy would already be at their limit of what they could control, and Germany would not be keen to allow the weak and unreliable Italians to hold on to a vital area like the Suez canal. A good video all in all, but it does seem to be more of a "what if everything had gone unrealistically perfectly for Italy in WW1", and less of a "what would have realistically occurred if Italy joined the central powers".
I don't understand why they gave Egypt, Algeria, Morocco, and most of North Africa to Italy and Germany, especially with the historic turkish control there, and their losses against the Entente powers in those lands. Likely Northern Africa (With the exception off Ethiopia) would've fallen into Ottoman hands.
This Scenario is mostly unlickely. Austria would ahve never given up this much land, and especially not Southtyrol and Trieste. Southtyrol because the only reason why the Tyrolians accepted Habsburg rule was because they promised to never Part Tyrol. And Trieste not because it was a Freecity and the most important Tradeport of the Empire.
As much as this video looks aesthetically fantastic, in my opinion it is unrealistic. 1] The Italian army is more than likely going to be held up in the easily defendable Alps by Entente troops similar to in our timeline against Austro-Hungarian and German troops. The Italian army was by no means on par with the likes of France or Britain. 2] The Italian Navy, even when combined with the Ottoman and Austro-Hungarian army, would face fierce attacks from the British royal navy securing sea routes. Malta and Cyprus will be continous middle fingers to progress in the Mediteranian. If Germany's already advanced Navy lost to the British, I doubt these three will have even close to the same chance. 3] Italy was still trying hard to consolidating control over Lybia, a struggle that will hinder progress in North Africa. The Navy will already be hard pressed to reach the front and transport troops there in the first place. They already struggled against Abyssinia and the Ottomans before. This gives me little hope they will manage to capture Egypt. 4] Austria-Hungary was never going to cede the entire Dalmatian coast to Italy. They were fiercely against ceding any territory at all. 5] The majority of the Italian people and politicians were against war and pro-entente 6] Trade with Britain, along with other Entente powers were crucial in keeping the Italian economy going, if Italy faces and Embargo from Entente powers, they will not be able to survive. The German economy was already declining and suffered to feed its people due to the British naval blockade, I see worse things happening to Italy. 7] There was already a secret pact between France and Italy in the case of war to prevent a two front war. [This can be ignored] 8] The Central Powers would have to send more troops to help the lackluster Italian army in their multiple fronts, stretching them thin even furthur. If Italy wanted to join the Central Powers and win the war, they would have to focus entirely on Europe and abandon African ambitions. They must hope fir a quick war to apease the people and prey their economy survives untill then. With that all being said, Italy being part if the Central Powers wouldn't come close to guaranteeing a German victory in WW1. I love the art style though and I will understand if this isn't meant to be totally realistic and meant to be the BEST chance Italy can get if they joined the Central Powers, which is pretty slim already.
1) Italy+Austria +Hungary means uk dominance over East Mediterranean is in jeopardy 2) uk auffered in Africa too, needed Italy against Sudan Madhist and faced rebellion in East Africa 3) Italy was dependent on exports in uk and France yes but if Italy entered the Battle of Marna would have been different. Beside, Russia would have falle quickier and Triple Alliance would have had more soldiers against France and uk, who barely held against Germany alone
@@NoName-hg6cc 1) No it does not. The Italian and Austro-Hungarian navies had nothing on the British one. Britain would easily be able to cut Italian acess to their colonies, starve them out through a blockade [Suez or Gibraltar] and mess with costal cities, draining Italian moral short term and long term. 2) Britain would have been able to do it by itself or with the help of France as the Mahdists were mostly quelled. Italy wasn't going to help anyone with their below average armies. Additionally, Italy would be cut of from their colonies, unable to even reach the Lybia, let alone Mahdists. Not to mention Italy had huge trouble maintaining control over Libya. If Britain were to support Senussi Order, Italy can kiss Libya goodbye. 3) What is the battle of Marba? I'm sorry, but I can't find specifics or any general info about this alleged battle. Italy would be starved out like Germany. With their lackluster army, the Italians will be unable to push through the Alps, needing German troops to replace Italian losses and make sure the Entente don't destroy the Italian front lines, furthur stretching the German armies thin in harsh terrain. Thus, Italy wouldn't have been able to do much against the Entente.
@@Tnpt_studios 1) LOL yes it does, the bulk of British navy was in the North Sea and that navy was WAAY overrated. They would cut uk way to Egypt and thus to India, perhaps that way Germans Uboats would have manage to starve uk 2) Italy had the situation in Libya on standby. uk and France had super army unable to beat Ottomans or Germany 2vs1, they would be unable to control the Madhist, revolts in Egypt or in East Africa.If Turkey and Italy supported them uk could say goodbye to their possessions 3) Battle of Marne. Without Italy neutrality France would have lost it and uk wouldn't have gone far alone, given how it's own army and navy were really poor themselves. Thus Entente would have lost
@@Tnpt_studios You overrate uk fighting ability, especially the army, but the navy as well. What makes you think Germany army wouldn't be able, especially once France is defeated, to face the weak uk's army? Or the combined Triple Alliance navies to face uk's navy in the Mediterranean? Especially since it BARELY was able to contain German fleet and it lost even against Ottomans The combined Navy would cut uk from Suez and cut it from its Asians colonies and African colonies, some of which had uprisings uk was unable to keep control of thr Mediterranean to the oil deprived Italian navy until 1943, despite having that as only theater and was unable to achieve victory in Africa until America arrived and USSR decisive victories . Don't underestimate Austrian, Turks and Italians abilities while overestimating uk's
@@NoName-hg6cc 1) You over estimate Italian capabilities. The German Navy with all its might couldn't defeat the British Navy. What makes you think the poor quality of the Regia Marina could defeat the world's largest navy. Your acting as if Britain had its entire navy in the North Sea which is simply not true. The British Mediterranean fleet could close off the straights of Gibraltar and the Suez Canal whilst messing with Italian supply lines to Libya via Malta. 2) Italy barely had control and it was only due to British help. If Britain decides to support the Sennusi, its game over for Italy in terms of keeping Libya. The situation in Egypt was under control, Sudan barely had any rebellions. You make it seem like Britain had a fragile hold of its colonies. Again, that is simply not true. Britain had a firm grip over the region. Italy, on the other hand, had a fragile grip over Eritrea and Somalia. Without excess to these colonies, Britain and France can wipe them out. 3) What is the Battle of Marna? I can't find anything about it. Regardless, it doesn't change the facts. The German army was overstretched, the Ottoman army was abysmal, the Austro-Hungarian army was incompetent and the Italian army was lacklustre. The British had superior technology, better finances, access to manpower and large amounts of resources. Meanwhile, they are starving the Germans with their blockade. The French also had the manpower advantage. Britain and France were Italy's biggest trading partners. Without them, coupled with a blockade, the Italian economy will suffer. Food shortages and social unrest will hamper the Italian war effort. It doesn't help that most Italian politicians were either anti-war or pro-entente, causing political unrest if Italy made the very unpopular decision to join the central powers. Like I said before, Italy will need to hope for a quick victory or risk loosing it all. Unfortunately, that is unlikely.
I don’t think that communism would have spread in russia because in real life the Germans freed Lennin so that he could create chaos for the tsarist goverment. But in this timeline they would not have freed him because they are not tied up on the western front and they didn’t need to have a breaktrough on the eastern front.
I don'think that so much land would be given to Italy and I think you forgot but Portugal was in world war one and in the map of africa Angola was given to Germany but Mozambique was still under Portuguese control but still this alternate timeline to me is very interesting and you did a relatively good job in this video
No chance in hell that Austria would give up South Tyrol, Trieste and Istria. Trentino seems possible, and maybe Dalmatia too, but those 3 regions where non-negotiatable as 1 a core land of Austria (which until today is more Austrian than Italian, despite multiple forceful attempts to italianize it) and the other 2 where the windows to trade for Austria.
Aw man! I missed the opening! But I was taking a bath earlier. Also, how did my request for the video about the Commonwealth of Poland and Lithuania coming?
i am making a video about poland but I put it on hiatus because it became way too long, around 1 hr. I don't know when it will be done, but I do have that on my list for future videos, I just am not sure of the date.
@@Videntis.History I'm glad to hear that you did not abandon it. And wow! An hour long?! That's awesome! And I guess that you did take in what I said in that long comment, right?
This kind of reminds me of the ww2 what ifs. One decision could of changed the war drastically from taking years longer to stale mates leaving a DSWP still in charge of Germany to this day.
1-With Italy in the CP, Germany would have taken Paris and the French would have sued for peace. They would not have prolonged the conflict to the point where Germany and Italy had to occupy all of France. 2-War against France ending quickly would have given Italy some concessions in Southeast France, as well as Corsica and Tunisia, but they would still have to duke it out with England for Malta, Gibraltar, and Egypt which England would not give up easily. 3-I think Serbia would have still beaten back AH early on, but the CP would still have ground them down eventually. 4-Russia would not have lost territory so quickly. AH was still a mess that the Germans referred to their alliance as being “shackle to a corpse”. Russia had enormous reserves of manpower that they still would have drawn up. They would have easily outlasted France possibly even as long as history before Russia bowed out in 1917.
The peace deal makes no sense, germany already hade Elsass-Lothringen. Also Austria-Hungary would rather fight for the allies than give up southtyrol to italy.
AH giving up trentino is a bit realistic since immense pressure from Germany will make them cede it and not to mention the north part of south Tirol (German speaking ) was still under AH, other than that this video is heavily biased towards Italy and no way AH would give up their coastline
It would have meant some interesting naval battles. The Austro-Hungarian and Italian navies would together have been powerful enough to take on the French Navy. Perhaps the British would have had to transfer ships from the North Sea to the Mediterranean, thereby giving the German Navy a better chance.😊
Bullshit: 1) the triple alliance was defensive, Austria declared war first on Serbia, we had no legal obligation to help them, so they had no legal obligation to help us against Ethiopia or the Ottoman Empire 2) the agreements were "if Austria expands in the Balkans it must cede unredeemed territories to Italy as compensation" in 1908 Austria annexed Bosnia Herzegovina but refused to cede territories to us, just as it refused to cede them to us in 1914-1915 during the negotiations mediated by Germany. Former German Chancellor Von Bülow who handled the negotiations complained of Austrian stubbornness. To this let's add that although we were theoretically allies, Austria in the past had planned to invade us twice (Messina earthquake of 1908 and Italo-Turkish war). We had no reason to support such a lowly and unfaithful ally
I doubt the effectiveness of italian army , they would have gotten land in France but not too much maybe just savoy and nice. The whole North Africa is just impossible. Best they can hope for is Tunis. Austria might not hand over the whole Dalmatia to Italy just part of it. They would have lost their entire coast if they did. Austrian did more then Italian did in the First World War in our timeline so yah.
Look, i like how you rightly said that Italy’s participation is unjustly overlooked. Both Austria and Italy made a fatal mistake not getting along (mostly due to Austria). But this ain’t WW2, there is no way a capture of Paris in 1914-1915 is possible, the rest of the video is bullsh*t. It’d have went mostly the same, with more German victories and an eventual victory at Amiens. France would’ve surrendered right as German troops marched on Paris (around 1917), and so would Britain. The Entente would agree to a conditional surrender. Italy would have gotten the entirety of East Africa (Gibuti and Somaliland, and a right to procede in the annexation of Ethiopia), Tunisia, Malta, Savoy, Corsica, Nizza (which btw there was outrage when Italian prime minister Cavour agreed to cede it to France in the first place) plus the territories ceded by Austria (Sudtirolo and Istria, namely, but not Dalmatia), and most likely a protectorate over Albania. The Kingdom of Egypt would have probably gained independence under treaties of free passage guaranteed by Turkey and Italy, and Gibraltare would’ve probably been wither given to neutral Spain (under treaties of free passage), or annexed by Italy (unlikely).
The scenario depicted here wasn't the one agreed between the German and Italian High Commands. Under this agreement the Italian army was to provide an Army Corp that was to be deployed on the southern german border facing the french from the switz border to Colmar. This whould have allowed the German HQ to have more trops available for the Schlieffen plan. As Austria was against the predicted movement of Italian troops and supplies thru his territory there was even a plan to invade Switzerland in order to occupy one of the valley leading from Italy to Germany and have a supply line under the direct control of the Italian Army. The French-Italian border was deemed impossible to breach, so large operations on this front wasn't considered: the germans was sure that they could easily reach Paris if the italians supplied them the agreed Divisions. Italy had a long coastline, and Sardinia provided some extra problems, so the Italian Navy was to have a hard work to do. Libia and Eritrea was considered lost from the start unless the Ottomans was lending an helping hand, but this was considered impossible at best. If You are interested You could read the book "Studi Storico Militari - 1984" pubblished by the Ufficio Storico dello Stato Maggiore dell'Esercito Italiano.
Minor nitpick, all of the captions are in one line, which makes it so that 90% or so of the captions are impossible to read, and the captions only stay up for maybe 15 seconds. Other than that, I'd say this was pretty good.
I think your scenario is quite possible, but while I think Italy would have been a big game changer, I am unsure it would have gone as well as your scenario. I mainly think this because the Italian army was not that good in WW1 they had pretty poor equipment and bad moral issues. They mostly fought Austria Hungary which also had an army in poor shape. I think if Japan had also joined the central powers would have to take on the UK navy and UK territory in Asia, then I think it would have been very likely the central powers would have won.
I wonder if Italy would switch sides with the United Kingdom and France. Why would they want to join sides with the UK and France since Germany and Austria-Hungary promised to give some territories as long they comprise part of their deal? Italy would have focused on its economy since they're in no position to engage in war conquest to retake some old lands to reform the Roman Empire. What Italy could have done form a bloc similar to what Mussolini did with nations that used to be part of the Roman Empire, for it would have been better for them to have those nations be part of their union and economically and socially benefit the government and the people. This is amazing, Mr. Videntis. Please keep up the excellent work; remember, you deserve respect and recognition. I love to see a part of this for this incredible, my friend!
Italy would have massive troubles to hold french colonies having less troops. And the same goes to Eygpt were the Ottomans will help rebellion against the Italians which will go into an open war.
France being fully occupied is pretty silly. This isn't HOIIV or WW2, its WW1, where countries actually engage in diplomacy instead of just fully occupying every enemy they fight. France realistically would've surrendered as soon as it became clear that Paris was permanently lost, trying to minimise casualties and territorial loss.
@@MrGreenOffical No no, when Mexico achived his independence in 1821 it was an Empire, the empire fall 2 years later because Agustín de Iturbide (The Mexican Emperor) doesn’t want to sell Texas and California to USA, so the ambassador convinced several mexican generals to rebel against the empire, in short, they overthrew Iturbide and the empire because it was not convenient for the US government so the what if is about what if the empire survived to the rebellion or the rebellion wouldn’t have happened
In this timeline Italians also were actually capable. Which was absolutely untrue in our timeline, where they were actually losing to even Austrians and had arguably the worst high command.
Counter scenario, Italy being given such claims by the germans and Austrians prepares to fight. When the war begins Italian forces make progress but are slowed in southern France thanks to British aid in the North leading to a larger commitment of British forces early on. As for Africa Italy would make progress into Tunisia but would be slowed thanks to overstretched supply lines while in Italy British forces would first repel then advance into lybia making advancements into the Ottoman empire far slower. By late 1916 Italy is largly bogged down on all fronts. But a red uprising on the French lines forces France out of the war and Russia soon after. French loyalists flee to North Africa putting up a surprising counter offensive beating the italians out of Algeria. The communists on France secure much of the mainland and try to regain all French land pre 1914 before ending the war eventually leading to a new border with Italy with minor changes in Italys favour. Before going to deal woth the germans in thw North. The war is an eventual victory for the central powers but a slim one, as Britian was never beaten, still holding large sections of northern France from both the communists and Germany. Much of Eastern Europe would be under German rule but the Russia and French communists would ally themselves to defend against Germany forcing a war weary Germany to stay were it was. Italy after doing not grate overall would be snubbed by both Germany and Austria where eventually they would become fascist and ally with the French and Russians to appose Germay and their puppet in Austria. Meanwhile Britan under the early rule of Churchill would turn the Grench Loyalists into a protectorate and keep hold of key ports in northern France to "aid" the German's if the French wish to spread the revolution.
I think the british had plans for pushing Spain to support France in the WW1 if Italy joined the Central Powers. The british navy was too occupied with the german navy and the french navy alone couldnt keep the italian, austro-hungarian and ottoman navies at bay in the mediterranean sea so the spanish navy would have been a nice support.
I doubt that Italy would have been promised that much land and that the Central Powers offensive would go that well. I think that Italy was still too weak for a victory to be achieved that early and dominance over all of North Africa seems a bit much. I could see Italian involvement leading to a Central Powers victory in 1918 with more conservative land gains in Tunisia, Corsica, Nice, Savoy, Malta, and some Saharan territory alongside protectorate in Albania and maybe a bit more territory by the Austrians then just Trentino & Trieste. I think that Italian involvement could have still been delayed to 1915 as Italy was very opportunistic and would likely demand more concessions from Austria before joining.
The lands you mentioned were also what the Kingdom mainly wanted.
@MM King the British would have never lost Egypt
Yeah, they massively nerfed the British navy here lmao
Fair point
Agreed. No way A-H gives up their ability to have a navy like that after a victory.
8:10 that(Romania) is unrealistic and doesn't take in consideration the secret pact between Romania and the Central Powers that basically made Romania part of the alliance.
One of the main reason why Romania stayed neutral in the first 2 years was because of Italian Neutrality. Chances are that if Italy joins the Germans so will Romania either immediatly or just in time to take Bassarabia back.
Not to mention that, by that point, the Entent were already set to lose in the timeline. Paris had already fallen. Why would Romania bother joining in?
@@bg1052 i guess Romania joining the Entente is a "canon event".
This maybe unlikely but, I think if Romania joined the Central Powers in addition to Bessarabia they could have finagled an agreement to take Crimea as, 1) a province, 2) a protectorate, and 3) in a personal union with King Ferdinand of Romania by proclaiming Crown Prince Carol as Grand Khan of Crimea without taking any coastal areas from Ukraina.
@@carterbentonjr399 well he could also claim "the ancestral mildavian territories on rhe left(east) side of the river Dnister" considering that in the past the romanian presence was more significant in the south-west part of Ukraine,having many romanians be cossacks back then and many ruling in some parts. Of course that is before the imperial russian colonisation of the region with russians and ukrainians(from up north)
(edit) just to be clear i don't think that would have happened, even the most revisionists,jingoists and expansionist nationalists talk about "de la Nistru pân la Tisa"(From Nister to Tisza) worst case scenaria, besides today with Bugeac and N.Bucovina the most extreme would also want Pocuția/Pokutia.
Exactly, it was utterly stupid to suddenly join when even Russia was getting steamrolled
11:13 shoutout to the Bulgarian division for invading Estonia
I doubt Austria would give all of its Adriatic coast to Italy becoming landlock almost...
I imagine that this was just a bait for Italy to join and that both Austrian and German forces would invade some time after the war
@@Kkkokpit might have given Fiume and Zara at most, or just been like yo tough luck what are you gonna do switch sides? And then Italy wouldn’t promptly switch sides and try to get France and England to immediately rearm
I could see them gaining back Nice and Savoy from the French. Then then given Corsica and maybe Tripoli. Probably British Somaliland. At the very least. I think the bulk of Italian gains would be colonial.
Tbh, I don't think Italy would have captured much in Africa, since Italy being in the central powers would not change the fact that the British still had the largest navy in the world and would have easily defended any naval invasion.
@@mrsillytacos That being said most likely Italy takes Tunisia as they planned to in the late 1800s but France beat them to it. As for Algeria and Morocco, Italy after discussing it with Germany let France keep Algeria but make Morocco independent under joint Italian and German influence.
As for Spain, kind of establishes a protectorate over Aragon, Catalonia, and Valencia but annexes the Baleric Islands just to somewhat hem in France.
Then there is the Ottoman Turkish Empire. Italy has a secret agreement with Germany that if the Ottoman Turks should balkanize that Italy would get Antioch and Smyrna but Syria, Lebanon, Kurdistan Assyria will be independent, with Thrace going to Bulgaria and Constantinople as a free city under the oversight if Bulgaria, plus the central Agean Coast of Turkey going to Greece to keep them quiet and add the City of Trebizond on Turkey's Black Sea coast as a protectorate.
@@mrsillytacos p.s. As for Palestine, Italy with a lot of fast talking lets the U.K. take control of it to establish a Jewish State, but as in this time line splits off Ammon, Moab, and Edom, to establish the Kingdom of Jordan, additionally takes Gaza and the surrounding desert as an independent state.
Very interesting scenario.
I suspect Italian involvement wouldn't be quite so decisive in 1914/1915. They started the war with an army of just 300,000. They eventually mobilized 5 million men (their population was just slightly smaller than France but with a fraction the industrial capacity they took time to equip). The Alps are terrible to attack through and I don't see an Italian breakthrough there in 1914 as likely. The German offensive stalled due to logistical issues as much as Allied resistance. The deadlock on the western front would probably still have eventuated (though perhaps a little deeper into France/Belgium). Given Allied naval superiority, a swift conquest of Italian Libya is more likely than the Central Powers taking Egypt.
Regardless, by 1917 I can see a decisive difference. Without the Italian front, 60+ Austrian (and a few German) divisions are freed up for use elsewhere. Russia collapses in 1917 (if not sooner). If Romania still joins the Allies she is overrun even more swiftly and chances are there's never much of a Macedonian Front. Central Powers troops could have reinforced the Ottomans to halt their slow retreat from the Middle East.
By early 1918, in our reality, the Germans achieved a narrow advantage of 192 to 178 divisions on the western front. Here, things would be decisively more lopsided. With Italy now fully mobilized on the Alps and probably both fronts reinforced by the Austrians, it would have been closer to 300 to 178. France would have capitulated by mid-1918 for sure. Even with American help this balance could not be righted and I suspect we'd have an armistice in 1919 or later where the British let the Central Powers dominate Europe in return for keeping the rest of their empire.
your explanation is honestly much more likely than mine. Whenever I redo this video in a few years, I will keep everything you said in mind
nah, he was a loser
Given the lack of French troops getting sent to the north, Italy can just transverse the mountain pass.
I think Italy wouldn't gain Algeria and Morocco,as they had almost no interest in it,and Italy probably wouldn't seek to rebuild the Roman Empire, since that idea derived from the Fascists, especially Mussolini.They also probably wouldn't attempt to conquer Greece, instead limiting themselves to imposing a sphere of influence on them. As for the Ottomans? They probably won't clash with them except for conflicting interests in Africa and the Balkans. I'd imagine Italy also taking Sudan instead of Algeria and Morocco since they desired it alongside Egypt. Speaking of Egypt, I doubt Germany would desire the Suez Canal or ANY kind of control in the Mediterranean as they already have 2/3 allies in it. Of course, this could be disproved by the fact that Germany could imitate Britain and crave for control in both the land and the sea.
As for answering the question of Italy joining the Allies or staying in the Central Powers, I think Italy would stay in the Central Powers as the Britain and France would probably also be angry at Italy and I don't think Italy would have interest in coming to blows with the Germans, but, yet again, this could also be disproven.
Great video,man! 😄 As an Italian (especially a pro-Central Powers one) I was very excited for this video!
Tutti gli italiani e tutti i leader italici hanno sempre avuto come sogno più grande rifondare l’imperium, non era una questione di mussolini
@@SaimonTMquell'idea era stata fatta popolare da Mussolini, quindi non penso che il re volesse riformare l'impero a meno che avesse i territori necessari
@@GigaRomandurante tutto il risorgimento i richiami a Roma, alla sua gloria sia come repubblica e impero, erano tantissimi. L'idea di un'italia unita sia geograficamente che culturalmente se, non ci fosse stata Roma, non esisterebbe e quindi è naturale che l'Italia, in un modo o in un altro, finisca sempre con l'ambire all'impero. Pensa che uno dei progetti dell'italia era di ristabilire il "mare nostrum" e quindi il controllo su tutto mediterraneo. Prima il concetto era militare, ma anche oggi persiste in forma commerciale
@@Seeno__ si ma non penso che il re vorrebbe riformarla
@@Seeno__ Sì, ma c'è una differenza fra Roma come Domina Provinciarum (ovvero l'Italia come nazione e terra dei romani+italici) e dell'impero come possedimenti coloniali. L'Italia con il punto sui romani, da sempre ha ricordato la propria unione socio-culturale, non la legittimità di controllare tutti i territori coloniali dell'Impero Romano.
Man, I really like the fact that you nerfed the British navy heavily.
Italy joining the war on the German side could have changed the battle of the marne just by it (Italy) opening another front for France and making some of the fronts for the central powers easier to deal with. No the Italians would not have done well themselves in any battles, most likely needing German support just like Austria-Hungary did, but by existing alone and being on the side of the central powers they could have indeed made the capture of Paris more possible and thus maybe even the fall of France itself. Anything after that though is within the realm of imagination.
You'd be surprised, we were more ready to go against France than Austria-Hungary. Even in late 1914 the main part of the army was stationed near italo-french border
The Alps are insanely defensible, there’s a reason why Italian offensives there in early WW2 were stopped with a few hundred French soldiers. Given this is WW1 I don’t think it’d lead to a collapse in the video.
Other things would change. Africa is more of a front that Britain must defend and Austria-Hungary can position its troops decisively against Serbia and Russia instead of a three way split.
@@adamboh393 Italy's border with austria is also very mountanious, and it was able to draw 100,000's of Austrian and German troops
@@MarioSchlemmer-s5k ??? Truly Astro-Hungary destroyed the Russian army in 1915, right? I'd ask what you are even talking about but a better question would be what colour the sky in your world is. Enjoy your day.
@@MarioSchlemmer-s5k Fine. Italy would have conquered France and then the rest of Europe I guess. I mean doesn't explain Italy's complete reliance on the French and British or that even the Austro-Hugariansk could hold them on the Alps but whatever. Though according to you the superpower of Austria-Hungary really would have won WWI, at least if they hadn't been held back by those Germans in so idk. You don't seem to remotely understand the amount of aid/support/troops certain countries got from others but whatever reply in any way you want I hereby proclaim you King of the comments. Huzzah.
What if Miguel Da Paz Survived and inherited Castile, portugal and Aragon, forming an Iberian Union?
This would probably mean more centralization of Spain (Spain wasn't a nation at that time, but more like a region🇪🇦🇵🇹), more wars focused in the mediterrean and northern Africa instead of central Europe. Probably the culture and organization of the unified state would be developed differently (not so many bankrupcy of the state). After all, Charles I of Spain (and V of Germany) accession to the throne changed Spain and the empire a lot.
I would really love to see this one.
@@ivangasconmora1059 This is along the lines of what I've been theorizing as well. I suppose the wars in the Mediterranean would in particular mean a prolonged rivalry with the Ottomans, whereas less Spanish involvement could mean a lot of changes for the HRE - in particular the Low Countries and the Habsburgs - just as it could mean avoiding some disastrous entanglement for Spain. Portugal becoming, and staying, part of Spain would certainly change things as far as the colonies of the two as well.
But I really just started with the idea of a timeline where Spain is more or less a hegemonic power up until the 19th century, and this seemed like the most plausible point of divergence from which to get there. Thus the timeline requires also that the French never eclipse a stronger Spain on the continent, and that the inclusion of Portugal in the union helps Spain remain the dominant colonial power much longer. But at that point the divergence goes so far that I won't even pretend to know what the world would look like, so at this point I'm just using it as an excuse to include whatever other interesting scenarios I can think of.
@@SootShade
I think Spain would have been the hegemonic power in europe until the 1700 when France would take that position. And the Spanish Empire would be the richest and strongest in other continents and through the seas until the Napoleonic Wars. After that, it would just remain as a powerful colonial nation during the 19th and 20th century.
Maybe Germany would be stronger or maybe not if the hasburg mantains the title of emperor or if other dinasty takes over.
There's a lot of potential for HRE, and later Germany, to look very different in a timeline where Spain doesn't get as involved in the region. Who knows whether the Habsburgs would survive as a dominant force without a strong ally in Spain, and who might take over if they don't. The map of a unified Germany could also look very different, such as possibly including much of the Low Countries.
As for France, I'm thinking that, for my slightly fanciful timeline to work, the whole state might have to get neutered, if not outright collapse, early on. I don't know how exactly that might happen, but otherwise it's indeed a little hard to see how France doesn't eventually become the dominant power in Europe.
I highly doubt that after the war Italy would gain more land form Austria-Hungary, especially all the coast basically. It just doesn't make sense why they would give up territory post war. While the negotiation in the alps are realistic, and I think could've played out, I doubt AH would cede Trieste as it was the major port for the k.u.k. marine.
Besides that the push into France was realistic IMO, as Germany almost had Paris in our timeline. But i don't see why with Italy on the central powers side they would do better against the Russians. The north Africa front was important too, but I doubt that besides capturing Egypt with the ottomans, they would have such an easy time pushing the entente out. All in all, good video and keep up the work
If AH didn't cede Trieste to Italy the latter probably wouldn't join the Central Powers. This happened IRL as AH offered Italy Trento in exchange for neutrality in the war,but Italy wasn't satisfied and also asked for Trieste,and AH refused.
They would do better against the Russians because there was less pressure on the French front and a complete lack of an Italian front (for AH)
No major power would give up their coast line also Treiste was Austrias main trade port of the empire and the Empires most important Military naval base in the empire there is no scenario exept a military defeat where austria would give up the city
Ramania was part of the central powers until the war began, carol the 1st wanted romania in the war in order to take basarabia back but the crown council declined ,in this timeline romania would have joined the war early againt the entente
Great video! Central powers italy is a super underated alt history timeline that deserves more attention IMO
him: let me just buff italy a little bit italy: strong as the ussr in the cold war
We want a part 2 ❤🇮🇹
Your videos are more detailed and perfect than the great documentaries on TV 👍
thanks so much for the praise, I hope it does well enough for a part 2
It's literally impossible that it doesn't go well
@@Videntis.Historycan u make it so Italy stays with the Central Powers
@@Videntis.History Please consider doing a video on ''What if Carthage industrialized?''
@@Videntis.History Down vote as soon as I saw the USUAL "Italy's betrayal" didn't bother with the rest of this BS video. The AUSTRIANS betrayed the Alliance and their similar cousins Germany betrayed Italy AGAIN in WW II breaking the Pact of Steel promising Italy 3 years to prepare then invading Poland only 4 months later WITHOUT notifying Mussolini, dragging an unprepared Italy into WW II. ANOTHER biased video on Italy full of LIES, like 99% of all those on YT.
Love your Channel man! Suggestion: What if Napoleon III had won the Franco-Prussian War and then arrenged for his son to marry Princess Beatrice, forging closer ties to the UK?
Trieste and Trentino, are totally possible for the Austrians to cede, even if trieste is their most important Harbor, they stll had Pola and other harbors to expand their trade, and naval importance, but more than that, its just impossible for them to cede, first of all the dual monarchy would never give up its dalmatian coast, because they need acces to sea, to be considered a great power, and second of all, they for sure will not let italy get that much land in north africa, something more realistic, are just Egypt, and tunisia, completing an italian corridor through africa to their colonies, in the horn of africa, allowing a later invasion of ethiopia, and completing the italian colonial proces
Great video! Your maps are bellissimo👌
No way Austria gives up Dalmatia
Exactly! Even if Italy had performed as well as they did in this scenario there is no way the Austrians even under German pressure would essentially give up their entire coast!
Joining the Entente was the worst mistake Italy had ever made.
I see a bit of problems in this scenario.
First, I doubt that Italy could have this much effect on the French front. By seeing what happen with the weaker Austrian army in the real timeline and also what happened in the Second World War on the french front the impact of an Italian offensive would be very little.
Second Austrian, Italian and Ottoman Navies were way weaker than French and English one, so Mediterranean domination is also problematic and without naval supremacy invasion of Corsica and North Africa could have had problem. Also France and UK have many more troops in Africa than Italy. Ottoman got defeated in real timeline also so wouldn't be so much of an help.
Third, the territorial gains of Italy are too generous. If Italy would win, aslo Ottoman would win, seems unlikely they wouldn't want some of their old possession back in Africa. Austria giving Italy the balkanic coast is science fiction.
Also Italy had an hard time to control only Libia at the time, it seems hard that they would able to occupy al north Africa and also forcefully occupied Suez Canal against Germany.
For the rest nice entertain video and nice quality.
really love your narration and backround animation, great job!
Your Content is so Good. Here's some more Great War AH Ideas: What if the Ottomans joined the Entente? What if Spain had joined the Central Powers? What if Britain Joined the Central Powers? What if Belgium had allowed Germany to move it's troops through their country? What if Austria Hungary had left the war in 1916? What if The Netherlands Joined either the Central Powers or the Entente? What if Japan had joined the Central Powers? What if Bulgaria joined the Entente? What if The Great War hadn't escalated? What if Germany scrapped the Shlieffen plan and invaded Russia? What If Khedive Abbas of Egypt had Joined the Central Powers? What if The United States had joined the Central Powers? What if Afghanistan Joined the Central Powers?
Thanks so much, I will add these all to my list
@@Videntis.HistoryThanks. The Great War is one of my favourite events of history.
your videos are very good
I always enjoy discussing possible different historical outcomes. As to this one, I think Italy lacked the military and industrial capabilities to make the large gains predicted in the video. The main impact of Italian troops attacking France instead of Austria, as discussed, would be the Schlieffen Plan probably working because of France diverting troops to the south, and Austria Hungary doing better against Serbia and Russia because no troops were required against Italy. Italian gains would probably have been Savoy, Corsica, Tunisia, Malta, Cyprus, and Egypt in addition to the Austrian concessions Italian speaking South Tyrol and Trieste.
Sorry for the delay with the videos. The original file got corrupted so I had to restart the entire thing, if there are any animation mistakes I am sorry I also launched a discord server if you are interested: discord.gg/t4KWnJQC4S
Don't worry man! we understand! I know it wikk be worth it!
The link doesn't work
@@Lord_Of_Aether yeah sorry, fixed it
Upset at the Romania mistake, but we move. I do prefer detailed ultrarealistic development of events after the trigger event(s) that the scenario is based on. Looking forward to a future remake.
PS: You know those videos "What if everything went perfectly for X in [historical period]"? Romania did get one of the best story arcs and results by the very end of it all in our timeline.
PPS: My mind can't get the grasp of how much of a "crossroad of destiny" ww1 was. That's why it's the best period for what if scenarios.
*"Yo Videntis, nice new name"*
*"Can't wait for that Horn of African Adal Alternate History, What if Adal unified the horn if Africa and* *spread across east Africa reach coastal south africa and colonizing the great lakes"* 🤔🤔🤔
Good video, but I feel like you kind of forgot about the existence of the Senussi Order during WW1 with how easily they walked through North Africa and took over Egypt before 1916. I also doubt that the Italian and Ottoman fleets would be able to just kick the Royal Navy out of the Mediterranean like they did in the video, since the British navy was double or triple the size of the Italian and especially Ottoman navies in 1914 if I'm remembering correctly. While I still think the Central Powers probably would have won if Italy joined their side, it wouldn't have been as much of a cakewalk as it was made out to be in the video and Italy definitely couldn't have walked away with all of North Africa under it's control. Still a very well made video, though. Keep it up.
There is still the austrian fleet thought
@@alphaeins6560 they couldn't help
I swear if this scenario turns into Rome ill cry
It really wouldnt
Shouldn't *
Fantastic video. Keeps up the great work. Part 2 I hope. Peace ✌🏻
Neat. Grande Columbia? I think this would be well for where your channel currently is.
I think Malta should also have been mentioned for a bit, had Italy sided with the Central powers, they would have tried taking Malta, with the island serving as "the nurse of the Mediterranean" in reality, the Italian attempt (maybe even successful attempt) to take the Maltese islands would have impacted the entente troop's medical wellbeing because since Malta served as a base to heal wounded troops, the Italians taking the island would lead to the Entente's medical wing struggling more, leading to their troops taking longer to recover and more rushed medical infrastructure having to be built, costing the Entente further budget and potential land for war factories.
I love how you cover both modern and ancient Western history, the first video I watched was the Athens one and it was aesthetically great and content rich even though I didn’t know much on the topic. maybe expand to early-modern history as well 🤓
I love youre great work!
Thanks
15:45 alsace lorrain was not an expansion it was already part of the empire
He is talking about modern day alsace lorraine, it has expanded in time, what was referred as alsace lorraine during ww1 is now alsace moselle
Even it bit too unrealistic, it good nonetheless to explain what if italy joining central power instead of entente power. If you instead focus what entente had promise to Italy and they break it, you will know that the central power will do the same or similar to it. No Power that will give up large amounts of territory for appease one nation when still need to balance out the power. If Italy get that territory then the alliance will break immediately and the hostility between two nation begin.
What if Henry V Survived and Enforced the treaty of troyes, giving birth to an anglo-french empire
so the angevin empire? thats an awesome idea
@@Videntis.History Yep! Time to bring back the Plantagenets to Glory!
You forgot to go over Japan's opposition to the Central Powers and how this outcome would've influenced them.
This needs a Part Two.
I find the borders highly unrealistic but great video!
Thanks and that’s fair, is there anything else I can improve?
@@Videntis.History I think your videos are already really good. Its just with this one that Italy gained too much land. I would feel like they would be promised Savoy, Nice, Corsica, Tunisia, Jubaland, rest of Libya and potentially a bit further into Egypt or Algeria. And Greece was in ww1 so italy might also take some territory from them that Venice used to own
@@farmonxqc9370that makes sense, thanks for the nice and well though out reply
This feels way too much like a WW2 scenario. France would've likely surrended if the war went so badly early on, and I don't see how Germany would be able to make such massive gains on Russia. The partition of Africa in this timeline is totally unrealistic as well.
The Russian front here was almost identical to the actual Russian front in ww1 where the Germans destroyed the russians
@@Videntis.Historythey obviously know zero history lmao
What if władysław III survive the battle of Varna
What if Louis of Anjou and his wife Yolande (daughter of John I) became King and Queen of Aragon
What if Gaston De Foix survived the battle of Ravenna
What if Charles the Bold turned Burgundy into a kingdom
Beautiful video is very interesting if Italy had sided with the forces of the central powers.
but there is an error in the map at point 3.39 on the city you wrote it wrong, it's not Treiste but Trieste.
This is not a criticism but simply a correction. Anyway you gained a new follower haha
based italian dream
Why you have a so small amount of Subscribers Ur so good at alt history
If the central powers would have kept their words Italy would have gained more than joining the Entente. But then again the keyword here is “if”.
How old are you? You sound very young. I'm 21, and I love history.
I'm happy when people around my age love history as well😊
im in university
U're giving the italians much more credit than they deserve. I think they would've helped but not to this degree. For example they probably would've got stuck in the alps.
I really enjoyed the video
As an Italian I think perhaps it would have been convenient for us to support the Central Powers, IF Austria hadn't proved to be a treacherous and unreliable ally
You mean not giving them their main naval port and land that they had for hundret of years?
@@alphaeins6560was it not worth it to win the war? And not really, the territories Italy asked for had already italian culture and a majority of italian speaking people, just like the majority of the already collapsing Austro-hungary who had litterally too many different ethnic groups to be a single country.
@@InsertAccountSavoy and Corsica have been French for centuries, unlike the territories Italy wanted from Austro-hungary.
@@idk-cj8mn South tirol and triest belonged both to the habsburges since the 14 th century
@@alphaeins6560 doesn't change anything i've said in the previous comments dude, Savoy and Corsica didn't have a majority of italian speaking population nor italian culture. Austro-Hungary was destined to collapse.
Can we get a video series continuing what if italy United in 1444.
What if 1444 alternatw Italian Colonialism.
What if 1444 Italy joined triple entente and allies in ww1 and ww2.
Here the thing, my part 2 to the Alexander video did bad, so I don't plan on making any part 2s unless the videos do really well, but that was my favorite video and I may do a part 2 to it at some point in the future. I don't know when, but I can promise you it will be made at some point, just not soon.
I love your channel
thanks so much
Please do a part two where the Italians reconquer their former Roman Empire
Yea this scenario leaving austria hungary basically landlocked prob would not have sat to well with them. I could see a-h becoming bitter for being screwed as italy did in OTL. Possibly joining britain, france, and russia in what im guessing would be another war.
Love your videos! Question: how do you animate your videos and what software do you use for the moving objects?
I use apple motion, I may make a video on behind the scenes in the future
I think this video is too generous to Italy. It is much more likely that they would have gained Tunisia, Corsica, Upper Savoy and Nice from France, not huge swathes of ethnically Occitan land including major cities like Lyon and Marseilles. Furthermore, a ceding of the Dodecanese islands and Dalmatian coast from the Ottomans and Austria respectively seems very unlikely, as they had already been generously compensated with French lands, and Germany would see no reason to pressure their allies into giving up land in Italy (other than the initial ceding of Trentino and Istria in 1902). Lastly, I think it is far more likely Egypt would be brought into the German sphere as an independent state, as Italy would already be at their limit of what they could control, and Germany would not be keen to allow the weak and unreliable Italians to hold on to a vital area like the Suez canal. A good video all in all, but it does seem to be more of a "what if everything had gone unrealistically perfectly for Italy in WW1", and less of a "what would have realistically occurred if Italy joined the central powers".
I don't understand why they gave Egypt, Algeria, Morocco, and most of North Africa to Italy and Germany, especially with the historic turkish control there, and their losses against the Entente powers in those lands. Likely Northern Africa (With the exception off Ethiopia) would've fallen into Ottoman hands.
This Scenario is mostly unlickely. Austria would ahve never given up this much land, and especially not Southtyrol and Trieste. Southtyrol because the only reason why the Tyrolians accepted Habsburg rule was because they promised to never Part Tyrol. And Trieste not because it was a Freecity and the most important Tradeport of the Empire.
I can't wait.
As much as this video looks aesthetically fantastic, in my opinion it is unrealistic.
1] The Italian army is more than likely going to be held up in the easily defendable Alps by Entente troops similar to in our timeline against Austro-Hungarian and German troops. The Italian army was by no means on par with the likes of France or Britain.
2] The Italian Navy, even when combined with the Ottoman and Austro-Hungarian army, would face fierce attacks from the British royal navy securing sea routes. Malta and Cyprus will be continous middle fingers to progress in the Mediteranian. If Germany's already advanced Navy lost to the British, I doubt these three will have even close to the same chance.
3] Italy was still trying hard to consolidating control over Lybia, a struggle that will hinder progress in North Africa. The Navy will already be hard pressed to reach the front and transport troops there in the first place. They already struggled against Abyssinia and the Ottomans before. This gives me little hope they will manage to capture Egypt.
4] Austria-Hungary was never going to cede the entire Dalmatian coast to Italy. They were fiercely against ceding any territory at all.
5] The majority of the Italian people and politicians were against war and pro-entente
6] Trade with Britain, along with other Entente powers were crucial in keeping the Italian economy going, if Italy faces and Embargo from Entente powers, they will not be able to survive. The German economy was already declining and suffered to feed its people due to the British naval blockade, I see worse things happening to Italy.
7] There was already a secret pact between France and Italy in the case of war to prevent a two front war. [This can be ignored]
8] The Central Powers would have to send more troops to help the lackluster Italian army in their multiple fronts, stretching them thin even furthur.
If Italy wanted to join the Central Powers and win the war, they would have to focus entirely on Europe and abandon African ambitions. They must hope fir a quick war to apease the people and prey their economy survives untill then. With that all being said, Italy being part if the Central Powers wouldn't come close to guaranteeing a German victory in WW1. I love the art style though and I will understand if this isn't meant to be totally realistic and meant to be the BEST chance Italy can get if they joined the Central Powers, which is pretty slim already.
1) Italy+Austria +Hungary means uk dominance over East Mediterranean is in jeopardy
2) uk auffered in Africa too, needed Italy against Sudan Madhist and faced rebellion in East Africa
3) Italy was dependent on exports in uk and France yes but if Italy entered the Battle of Marna would have been different. Beside, Russia would have falle quickier and Triple Alliance would have had more soldiers against France and uk, who barely held against Germany alone
@@NoName-hg6cc 1) No it does not. The Italian and Austro-Hungarian navies had nothing on the British one. Britain would easily be able to cut Italian acess to their colonies, starve them out through a blockade [Suez or Gibraltar] and mess with costal cities, draining Italian moral short term and long term.
2) Britain would have been able to do it by itself or with the help of France as the Mahdists were mostly quelled. Italy wasn't going to help anyone with their below average armies. Additionally, Italy would be cut of from their colonies, unable to even reach the Lybia, let alone Mahdists. Not to mention Italy had huge trouble maintaining control over Libya. If Britain were to support Senussi Order, Italy can kiss Libya goodbye.
3) What is the battle of Marba? I'm sorry, but I can't find specifics or any general info about this alleged battle.
Italy would be starved out like Germany. With their lackluster army, the Italians will be unable to push through the Alps, needing German troops to replace Italian losses and make sure the Entente don't destroy the Italian front lines, furthur stretching the German armies thin in harsh terrain. Thus, Italy wouldn't have been able to do much against the Entente.
@@Tnpt_studios 1) LOL yes it does, the bulk of British navy was in the North Sea and that navy was WAAY overrated. They would cut uk way to Egypt and thus to India, perhaps that way Germans Uboats would have manage to starve uk
2) Italy had the situation in Libya on standby. uk and France had super army unable to beat Ottomans or Germany 2vs1, they would be unable to control the Madhist, revolts in Egypt or in East Africa.If Turkey and Italy supported them uk could say goodbye to their possessions
3) Battle of Marne. Without Italy neutrality France would have lost it and uk wouldn't have gone far alone, given how it's own army and navy were really poor themselves. Thus Entente would have lost
@@Tnpt_studios You overrate uk fighting ability, especially the army, but the navy as well. What makes you think Germany army wouldn't be able, especially once France is defeated, to face the weak uk's army? Or the combined Triple Alliance navies to face uk's navy in the Mediterranean? Especially since it BARELY was able to contain German fleet and it lost even against Ottomans
The combined Navy would cut uk from Suez and cut it from its Asians colonies and African colonies, some of which had uprisings
uk was unable to keep control of thr Mediterranean to the oil deprived Italian navy until 1943, despite having that as only theater and was unable to achieve victory in Africa until America arrived and USSR decisive victories . Don't underestimate Austrian, Turks and Italians abilities while overestimating uk's
@@NoName-hg6cc 1) You over estimate Italian capabilities. The German Navy with all its might couldn't defeat the British Navy. What makes you think the poor quality of the Regia Marina could defeat the world's largest navy. Your acting as if Britain had its entire navy in the North Sea which is simply not true. The British Mediterranean fleet could close off the straights of Gibraltar and the Suez Canal whilst messing with Italian supply lines to Libya via Malta.
2) Italy barely had control and it was only due to British help. If Britain decides to support the Sennusi, its game over for Italy in terms of keeping Libya. The situation in Egypt was under control, Sudan barely had any rebellions. You make it seem like Britain had a fragile hold of its colonies. Again, that is simply not true. Britain had a firm grip over the region. Italy, on the other hand, had a fragile grip over Eritrea and Somalia. Without excess to these colonies, Britain and France can wipe them out.
3) What is the Battle of Marna? I can't find anything about it. Regardless, it doesn't change the facts. The German army was overstretched, the Ottoman army was abysmal, the Austro-Hungarian army was incompetent and the Italian army was lacklustre. The British had superior technology, better finances, access to manpower and large amounts of resources. Meanwhile, they are starving the Germans with their blockade. The French also had the manpower advantage.
Britain and France were Italy's biggest trading partners. Without them, coupled with a blockade, the Italian economy will suffer. Food shortages and social unrest will hamper the Italian war effort. It doesn't help that most Italian politicians were either anti-war or pro-entente, causing political unrest if Italy made the very unpopular decision to join the central powers.
Like I said before, Italy will need to hope for a quick victory or risk loosing it all. Unfortunately, that is unlikely.
I don’t think that communism would have spread in russia because in real life the Germans freed Lennin so that he could create chaos for the tsarist goverment. But in this timeline they would not have freed him because they are not tied up on the western front and they didn’t need to have a breaktrough on the eastern front.
thats a good point
They did! They just didn't stay with them and that's where the Italy always switches sides meme comes from.
Romania joined after the successes of the Russian offensive in Galizia... they would never have entered with Russia on the brink of collapse
I don'think that so much land would be given to Italy and I think you forgot but Portugal was in world war one and in the map of africa Angola was given to Germany but Mozambique was still under Portuguese control but still this alternate timeline to me is very interesting and you did a relatively good job in this video
This feels like an actula documentary
Im not sure I can contemplate a history with less than 349582 battles of the Isonzo
No chance in hell that Austria would give up South Tyrol, Trieste and Istria. Trentino seems possible, and maybe Dalmatia too, but those 3 regions where non-negotiatable as 1 a core land of Austria (which until today is more Austrian than Italian, despite multiple forceful attempts to italianize it) and the other 2 where the windows to trade for Austria.
Aw man! I missed the opening! But I was taking a bath earlier. Also, how did my request for the video about the Commonwealth of Poland and Lithuania coming?
i am making a video about poland but I put it on hiatus because it became way too long, around 1 hr. I don't know when it will be done, but I do have that on my list for future videos, I just am not sure of the date.
@@Videntis.History I'm glad to hear that you did not abandon it. And wow! An hour long?! That's awesome! And I guess that you did take in what I said in that long comment, right?
@@lerneanlion yeah some of it, kinda, the video is very unique and original, and there hasn't been anything like it
@@Videntis.History I only hope that you did not abandon it, of course. So good luck!
Can you do what if Aurelian did not get assassinated? Thank you
yeah, great idea
This kind of reminds me of the ww2 what ifs. One decision could of changed the war drastically from taking years longer to stale mates leaving a DSWP still in charge of Germany to this day.
1-With Italy in the CP, Germany would have taken Paris and the French would have sued for peace. They would not have prolonged the conflict to the point where Germany and Italy had to occupy all of France.
2-War against France ending quickly would have given Italy some concessions in Southeast France, as well as Corsica and Tunisia, but they would still have to duke it out with England for Malta, Gibraltar, and Egypt which England would not give up easily.
3-I think Serbia would have still beaten back AH early on, but the CP would still have ground them down eventually.
4-Russia would not have lost territory so quickly. AH was still a mess that the Germans referred to their alliance as being “shackle to a corpse”. Russia had enormous reserves of manpower that they still would have drawn up. They would have easily outlasted France possibly even as long as history before Russia bowed out in 1917.
The peace deal makes no sense, germany already hade Elsass-Lothringen. Also Austria-Hungary would rather fight for the allies than give up southtyrol to italy.
AH giving up trentino is a bit realistic since immense pressure from Germany will make them cede it and not to mention the north part of south Tirol (German speaking ) was still under AH, other than that this video is heavily biased towards Italy and no way AH would give up their coastline
It would have meant some interesting naval battles. The Austro-Hungarian and Italian navies would together have been powerful enough to take on the French Navy. Perhaps the British would have had to transfer ships from the North Sea to the Mediterranean, thereby giving the German Navy a better chance.😊
I like the implication that even after gaining so much, the italians are still treacherous just to reform rome
It was already like that, but they betrayed
It was q defensive pact and A-H declared war.
Bullshit:
1) the triple alliance was defensive, Austria declared war first on Serbia, we had no legal obligation to help them, so they had no legal obligation to help us against Ethiopia or the Ottoman Empire
2) the agreements were "if Austria expands in the Balkans it must cede unredeemed territories to Italy as compensation" in 1908 Austria annexed Bosnia Herzegovina but refused to cede territories to us, just as it refused to cede them to us in 1914-1915 during the negotiations mediated by Germany. Former German Chancellor Von Bülow who handled the negotiations complained of Austrian stubbornness.
To this let's add that although we were theoretically allies, Austria in the past had planned to invade us twice (Messina earthquake of 1908 and Italo-Turkish war). We had no reason to support such a lowly and unfaithful ally
I doubt the effectiveness of italian army , they would have gotten land in France but not too much maybe just savoy and nice. The whole North Africa is just impossible. Best they can hope for is Tunis. Austria might not hand over the whole Dalmatia to Italy just part of it. They would have lost their entire coast if they did. Austrian did more then Italian did in the First World War in our timeline so yah.
The consequences of justinians conquests without the plague would be interesting
What if burgundy had survive as an independent power
thats a really good idea
Look, i like how you rightly said that Italy’s participation is unjustly overlooked. Both Austria and Italy made a fatal mistake not getting along (mostly due to Austria).
But this ain’t WW2, there is no way a capture of Paris in 1914-1915 is possible, the rest of the video is bullsh*t.
It’d have went mostly the same, with more German victories and an eventual victory at Amiens. France would’ve surrendered right as German troops marched on Paris (around 1917), and so would Britain. The Entente would agree to a conditional surrender.
Italy would have gotten the entirety of East Africa (Gibuti and Somaliland, and a right to procede in the annexation of Ethiopia), Tunisia, Malta, Savoy, Corsica, Nizza (which btw there was outrage when Italian prime minister Cavour agreed to cede it to France in the first place) plus the territories ceded by Austria (Sudtirolo and Istria, namely, but not Dalmatia), and most likely a protectorate over Albania.
The Kingdom of Egypt would have probably gained independence under treaties of free passage guaranteed by Turkey and Italy, and Gibraltare would’ve probably been wither given to neutral Spain (under treaties of free passage), or annexed by Italy (unlikely).
The scenario depicted here wasn't the one agreed between the German and Italian High Commands.
Under this agreement the Italian army was to provide an Army Corp that was to be deployed on the southern german border facing the french from the switz border to Colmar. This whould have allowed the German HQ to have more trops available for the Schlieffen plan.
As Austria was against the predicted movement of Italian troops and supplies thru his territory there was even a plan to invade Switzerland in order to occupy one of the valley leading from Italy to Germany and have a supply line under the direct control of the Italian Army.
The French-Italian border was deemed impossible to breach, so large operations on this front wasn't considered: the germans was sure that they could easily reach Paris if the italians supplied them the agreed Divisions.
Italy had a long coastline, and Sardinia provided some extra problems, so the Italian Navy was to have a hard work to do.
Libia and Eritrea was considered lost from the start unless the Ottomans was lending an helping hand, but this was considered impossible at best.
If You are interested You could read the book "Studi Storico Militari - 1984" pubblished by the Ufficio Storico dello Stato Maggiore dell'Esercito Italiano.
I dunno about this. I'll have to fire up my old freeware Axis&Allies game to check.
What if the maurya n empire never fell
good idea
Minor nitpick, all of the captions are in one line, which makes it so that 90% or so of the captions are impossible to read, and the captions only stay up for maybe 15 seconds.
Other than that, I'd say this was pretty good.
I feel like his alt history's need a bit more work, also maybe some better troop placement and territorial painted. Besides though that I quite enjoy.
When you mispel Trieste …
yeah sorry
@@Videntis.History are you planning on redoing the video and correcting possible mistakes?
@@alphaeins6560 yeah at some point in the future
@@Videntis.History looking forward to it. maybe you could make also one on what would have happened if the emperor of the hre won the 30 years war?
@@alphaeins6560 thats on the way
I think your scenario is quite possible, but while I think Italy would have been a big game changer, I am unsure it would have gone as well as your scenario. I mainly think this because the Italian army was not that good in WW1 they had pretty poor equipment and bad moral issues. They mostly fought Austria Hungary which also had an army in poor shape.
I think if Japan had also joined the central powers would have to take on the UK navy and UK territory in Asia, then I think it would have been very likely the central powers would have won.
I wonder if Italy would switch sides with the United Kingdom and France. Why would they want to join sides with the UK and France since Germany and Austria-Hungary promised to give some territories as long they comprise part of their deal? Italy would have focused on its economy since they're in no position to engage in war conquest to retake some old lands to reform the Roman Empire. What Italy could have done form a bloc similar to what Mussolini did with nations that used to be part of the Roman Empire, for it would have been better for them to have those nations be part of their union and economically and socially benefit the government and the people. This is amazing, Mr. Videntis. Please keep up the excellent work; remember, you deserve respect and recognition. I love to see a part of this for this incredible, my friend!
Italy would have massive troubles to hold french colonies having less troops. And the same goes to Eygpt were the Ottomans will help rebellion against the Italians which will go into an open war.
France being fully occupied is pretty silly. This isn't HOIIV or WW2, its WW1, where countries actually engage in diplomacy instead of just fully occupying every enemy they fight. France realistically would've surrendered as soon as it became clear that Paris was permanently lost, trying to minimise casualties and territorial loss.
What if the First Mexican Empire survive?
You Mean if Mexico Won the Mexican-American War,
or It Never Happends?
@@MrGreenOffical No no, when Mexico achived his independence in 1821 it was an Empire, the empire fall 2 years later because Agustín de Iturbide (The Mexican Emperor) doesn’t want to sell Texas and California to USA, so the ambassador convinced several mexican generals to rebel against the empire, in short, they overthrew Iturbide and the empire because it was not convenient for the US government so the what if is about what if the empire survived to the rebellion or the rebellion wouldn’t have happened
In this timeline Italians also were actually capable. Which was absolutely untrue in our timeline, where they were actually losing to even Austrians and had arguably the worst high command.
Italy was winning against AH
I'm not sure what would have happened, but I feel pretty sure Italy would not have made out that well.
Yeah probably true
no way Italy literally destroyed ottoman empire in ww1 and occupied center of turkey
@@Devon_drugged_Oleg_Petrenko exept that Italy litteraly crushed the ottomans in the Italo-Turkish war (1911-1912)
@@hathor82 of course
People underrating Italy, as always.
I follow you now...
Are you a Italian/hellenic/latin Guy?
Greetings from Germany
No actually not really, but I love Mediterranean history and culture. My family comes from mainly northern and Eastern Europe but I’m American
@@Videntis.History Ah Greetings
Counter scenario, Italy being given such claims by the germans and Austrians prepares to fight. When the war begins Italian forces make progress but are slowed in southern France thanks to British aid in the North leading to a larger commitment of British forces early on.
As for Africa Italy would make progress into Tunisia but would be slowed thanks to overstretched supply lines while in Italy British forces would first repel then advance into lybia making advancements into the Ottoman empire far slower.
By late 1916 Italy is largly bogged down on all fronts. But a red uprising on the French lines forces France out of the war and Russia soon after.
French loyalists flee to North Africa putting up a surprising counter offensive beating the italians out of Algeria.
The communists on France secure much of the mainland and try to regain all French land pre 1914 before ending the war eventually leading to a new border with Italy with minor changes in Italys favour. Before going to deal woth the germans in thw North.
The war is an eventual victory for the central powers but a slim one, as Britian was never beaten, still holding large sections of northern France from both the communists and Germany.
Much of Eastern Europe would be under German rule but the Russia and French communists would ally themselves to defend against Germany forcing a war weary Germany to stay were it was.
Italy after doing not grate overall would be snubbed by both Germany and Austria where eventually they would become fascist and ally with the French and Russians to appose Germay and their puppet in Austria.
Meanwhile Britan under the early rule of Churchill would turn the Grench Loyalists into a protectorate and keep hold of key ports in northern France to "aid" the German's if the French wish to spread the revolution.
Need a pt2
How do you animate your videos
i use apple motion
@@Videntis.History thanks
I think the british had plans for pushing Spain to support France in the WW1 if Italy joined the Central Powers.
The british navy was too occupied with the german navy and the french navy alone couldnt keep the italian, austro-hungarian and ottoman navies at bay in the mediterranean sea so the spanish navy would have been a nice support.
In the rest of the world people have normal dreams, but this video represents the dream of an average Italian 😂😂😂
Do a part 2 where Italy goes on to Reform a new Roman Empire
Consider me a permanant supporter i've watched you grown from nothing I just hope you will remember me when you reach hundreds of thousands of subs.
yeah, I remember you from the start, and I won't forget you