Historian Reacts - Top Ten What Ifs of History by TopTenz
Вставка
- Опубліковано 19 чер 2024
- See the original content here - • Top 10 of the Biggest ...
Check out the VTH Podcast
Spotify - open.spotify.com/show/2lMCaIT...
Apple - podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast...
VTH Gaming - / thehistoryguy
VTH Extra - / @vthextra
VTH Originals - / @vthoriginals259
#History #alternatehistory
You should make your own top ten what ifs. Your historical perspective would lead to an interesting and in depth discussion
I second this!
I third this
I fourth this
I fif...a screw it
i sixth this
One of my personal favorite what ifs recently: what if Leon Trotsky won the power struggle against Stalin after Lenin died?
That's a good one. Sadly i don't know enough about this but I think Trosky is to be prefered.
Oh, that's a good one! I don't know a lot about it either, but I think a Trotsky led USSR would have been even more aggressive internationally, but perhaps less oppressive internally
@@Athokas Probably purges would have happened, but maybe not to the level of Stalin's
Trotsky mindset was more of a "permanent revolution" if I recall correctly which would lead to exactly what you mentioned, a more aggressive internationally USSR
This is taking it further but there is a chance that Trotsky could have intervened in Ethiopia to get the chance to place a communist government once they beat the Italians (if they could have beaten them) or not accepting the Molotov-Riventrop non-agression pact before the invasion of Poland or used the opportunity to attack the German Reich when they were busy with France and the countries around the maginot line
But as I said, that is taking it a bit too far and now theorizing
I think the SU remains, not quite as many purges, and Russia slowly moves away from pure communism because it just doesn't work. For Russia, it would have been far better.
Soviet union collapses by ww2
The "siring an heir" one could apply to literally 99% of the Roman Empire.
For stability? Yeah probably
I think there's an important butterfly effect missed when talking about Napoleon. If he doesnt suffer those losses and doesnt finally get taken down, France retains top dog status for the foreseeable future. If France isnt weakened by all of its internal bollocks after Napoleon and up to/through the reign of Napoleon III then Prussia would never have been able to have its rise to power, win the Franco-Prussian War, and formally create the state of Germany. Instead youd still have a smaller Prussian Empire that MAYBE unifies with the Austrians due to the French threat, but thats unlikely due to Germanic nationalism and the whole mess of shit that made up Austria at the time.
tl;dr If Napoleon doesnt lose, Bismarck doesnt get to be Bismarck because France would snuff out any Prussian attempts to expand and grow and we dont get Germany.
That's interesting, never thought of that
Bismarck would have found a way. Because Bismarck has a plan he always has a plan. But in al seriousness a stronger France in the 19th and 20th century does have consequences.
What about what happens after Napoleon’s death. I don’t think France would be able to retain control over those countries.
I know Napoleon wasn't like a perfect person or anything. But man, I can't help but like him. Such a great story of what a human can become. I don't get where that drive of ambition comes from. Leave me in a hammock with some bananas and I'm good, so to speak.
It is hard to tell how the relationship between France, Austria and Prussia would have developed. One factor might be someone that did not play a role in the real history at all, which is Napoleon II. In reality he had no political power and died quite young in Vienna. If Napoleon I stays in power this changes as Napoleon II would be the successor. Of course it would depend a lot if Napoleon I and the II still both die at about the same time they did in realty. If we assume this happens, then Napoleon II would die a few years into his reign without an heir, which easily could spark a succession crisis and a big European war. There would be different parties that could claim the French throne. Of course the Bourbons would claim the succession, as well as the Bonaparts. In reality the Bourbons were put in charge after the defeat of Napoleon, but in this scenario the Bonapart family would have a strong claim and also a much better standing. In addition there might also be a third player, the Habsburg family. The mother of Napoleon II was a daughter of the Austrian Emperor and in addition also the wife of the last Bourbon king Louis XVI was from the Habsburg family. Not the best claim of the three, but good enough for an intervention if the Austrian Emperor would decide to take advantage of the situation.
This could end up in a scenario like the War of the Spanish Succession where the European powers would fight over control of France by supporting their own candidates. Who knows who would end up at the top in such a scenario.
The biggest "what-if" for me that doesn't get covered as much is the Assyrian siege of Jerusalem in 701 BCE. Obviously, going that far back in time, we're going off of a lot of conjecture, but I don't think it's that much of a stretch to say that the Jewish faith may have died out had that siege succeeded. As far as I know, Jerusalem was, for a time under the Assyrians, the only place where Judaism was practiced openly. Had the Assyrians conquered Jerusalem in 701 BCE, there's potentially no more Judaism by the time the Romans come around, which means no Christianity, no Islam... the world is a different place in ways that we can't even begin to comprehend.
I'm not too familiar with this but I notice the date corresponds to around the time the gospels of the new testament are believed to have been written. Would the current biblical record have been affected in your what-if scenario? Just curious of any correlation exists.
@@bones2177 BCE means Before Common Era, ie, 701 years before the birth of Christ. The New Testaments comes long after his death. So the Assyrian Siege takes place long before Christianity and Islam, hence why Spencer says that if that siege was a success Christianity and Islam would most likely never have happened. Some of the Old Testament might not have been written and what was already written might have been destroyed.
@@antonakesson I mis-read that. I was thinking of the time-frame 500-700 AD. That answers that question
Thank you for posting about this. Never heard of this but went and read about it as soon I read your post. Thank you again.
Except Babylon comes along a little while later and finishes the job...if the Jewish faith survives that and nearly 2000 year sof being dispersed, losing a little earlier would not matter.
I think on the 9/11 number they mixed up casualties with deaths. In addition to nearly 3k deaths, there is listed 6000 injured. Which likely is how the 9k number came together in his video.
Could also be 9/11 related deaths, from the towers falling and also the toxic debris that caused many of those near the buildings to develop cancer
Never forget the 343
@@japjeetsuden4252 that’s exactly right. More people died from the affects of toxins in the air from the twin towers than the people who died in the twin towers.
@@xEvilRaptorx the 343 are a part of that 3k…
2998 died as result of the attacks. Anything else after that better be new remains identified from ground zero. Any health problems as a result shouldn't count towards the death toll of 9/11
There are so many bigger what if's that could have made the list. Below are just a few in no perticular order.
What if Operation Unthinkable was launched?
What if the Cuban missile crisis turned hot?
What if Jean François de Galaup took Napoleon on his expedition, instead of rejecting his application, leading to Napoleon's death?
What if the Persian Empire successfully conquered the Greek city states?
What if Hannibal sacked Rome? What if the French didn't send their Navy to Yorktown?
What if the Christians lost the Reconquista?
What if the Nationalists won the Chinese Civil War?
What if the Spanish Armada had succeeded?
What if the Franco-British Union actually happened?
What if the Ottomans conquered Vienna?
These are all great what if scenarios. One I'll add that I also think should have been in the video is what if Caesar is killed in Gaul?
God if onpy Chang kai shek could have pulled out the W.
Yeah, i think the Cuban Missle Crisis if far higher than some on this list in the video. We were legit a couple bad moves away from either US or USSR feeling the need to preemptive strike
I think the Reconquista was a foregone conclusion considering it had being Christian soil for so long and it was on Europe. It just might have taken longer. This wasn't Jerusalem thousands of miles away from Europe
Chinese Civil war would have been huge if the Nationalists had more support. China may have still become a major economic player but it's ties with the US end up better. We hop in to help Korea but don't for China...um k.
What if the Romans lost the battle of Chalons to the Huns?
Yeah if the Spanish Armada succeeded then things in the west would be extremely different.
I think a big one that people often overlook is the battle of Magnesia, if the Romans had lost, this could have resulted in decades even centuries more of conflict between Romans and Greeks.
If they had lost the Ideas of Alexander would have been reinvigorated with Antiochus III the Great who had some very mistimed things happen to him to lose to Rome the way he did. An I truly believe Rome would not have risen as it did, as the east would just dominated them. Because with Greece finally back in Egypt wouldn't have held Antiochus had already dealt it some crushing blows. Honestly the last Hurrah of Alexanders Legacy. The Seleucids where a shadow of its former self and Antiochus brought it back to the foremost power of the time for a short period. SO 100 Percent agree with you on this.
20:00
Slight correction there, because I think you may have misheard him, Simon actually said "Everywhere BUT Britain falls behind the Iron Curtain."
I love your videos and how you give you options on what would happen. It's fascinating to listen to!
21:10 I don't think Britain, Prussia, Austria and Russia would have come to terms with France's dominance. Whenever a European power grows too strong in the continent, the others always try to weaken it. When the Habsburgs of Spain and Austria were dominant, France, England, the Ottomans and others were always trying to weaken it. When Sweden was growing too powerfull in Northern Europe, Poland, Russia and Denmark teamed up against it. When it seemed like Russia was geting too powerfull the British and French tried to weaken it in the Crimean war. When the Ottomans dominated the Balkans there were countless wars waged by many nations to curb their power. One recurring theme in European history is that when a country gets too strong everyone else wants to take it down a peg.
FACTS
Yes but honestly Napoleon's France was very very powerful no country before the invasion of Russia would have been hable to beat it, i mean they litterally tried 7 times before that so
@@ForeskinWillis he might have held his hegemony for a while but eventually France would lose it, Napoleon was declining fast as a person and suffering from cancer, even if he held the hegemony in his lifetime, it would probably be lost in his son's reign.
@@masterplokoon8803 Dude just look at the numbers in terms of military strenght at the time France almost had a WW1 manpower in 1810 the downfall of the first French empire is totally due to Russia's campaign without it France border of today would have been way bigger
@@ForeskinWillis his empire would not last forever, he was pretty much alone against the rest of Europe. The Habsburgs once held hegemony in Europe but they too could worn down by countless wars, weakened and eventually suplanted. None of the other nations would have been content with his hegemony and would be constantly try to end it or weaken it, France might win and hold on for a while but eventually it would be forced to lose its hegemony France did not have more population than everyone else combined, the mess in Spain and Portugal still needed to be solved, Britain still controlled the seas and nations like Russia, Prussia, Austria and Sweden would be ready to pounce on any weakness. If he had not invaded Russia his Empire might last more decades but eventually it would have lost its dominance over the continent. Napoleonic France was as sucessfull as it was because of Napoleon himself. Once he died it would have declined fast.
I was expecting a “The Normans lost the battle of Hastings” or “The First Opium War doesn’t happen” or “the Vikings establish permanent trade posts in North America”
The Norman one is tough because so many factors could change, it's really hard to say what even the next 100 years Europe looks like vs 1000 years later.
The Normans should have lost the BoH 😂
@@subashira Whys that?
The English language was changed forever due to Hastings but I don't know about the other 2 enough to make a good opinion
I think you might have a slightly wrong picture of the V3. The V3 was supposed to be built inside a bunker complex. It wasn't "pretty immobile", it was completely stationary. Also it wasn't "huge", at least not above the ground. It was literally just a small hole in the ground that could launch shells to London, and it would have been almost impossible to destroy by air if it was completed. Or at least that was the idea.
The u-boats pens were for a long time during the war bomber proff, until the brits built a bomb so huge they had to remove a Lancasters bomb bay to fit it in which could blow u-boat pens to pieces and literally cause a small earthquake tremor strong enough to collapse bridges, had bombs like that not worked on the v3 complex other bombs would be used or invented until it was a smoldering heap and nothing more than a caved in tunnel burying the gun crews.
@@leodesalis5915 the question is, how much damage would the V3 have done before a new bomb was invented?
@@kallekillen2285 probably a decent bit but not enough to change the war, it's no nuke, England had been bombed plenty throughout the war and had given it back 100 times over to the Germans, if they were able to hit london consistently and with great loss of life, we'd have just bombed some other unlucky German city or probably all of them until Dresden was counted as a light bombing raid in comparison.
@@leodesalis5915 which means the V3 would have had a significant impact
@@kallekillen2285 yeah I guess your right, it wouldn't quite be the help the Germans thought it would be 😂
I think one of the biggest "what ifs" that I don't hear talked about very often is what if Katherine of Aragon had given Henry VIII a surviving son?
So much of the world we live in would be different today.
Or if Henry VIII had been willing to let his daughter Mary be a ruling queen. She would have married in her teens or early 20s instead of at 39. Maybe there would have been a civil war over who got to be her husband.
@@nrkgalt true. I think whether it was Mary or a son in all likelihood there would be marriages back into Katherine's family and the English royals would just end up another minor branch of the Hapsburgs.
I readily agree that if Napoleon does not commit the error that Europe as we know it in the 19th and early 20th century are extremely different. He championed the idea of meritocracy where those with the skills can rise to lead rather than the old kings and queens and old aristocracies. I think we see better leadership and an earlier arrival of the end of kings and queens and better civil service all over Europe
The leaders of the mid-late 19th century europe were some of the best in history, so I'm not sure about that
Your question about if things would be better with Napoleon reminded me about the History vs. series from Ted Ed. Basically it’s a short video where they put a historical character and debate about whether they were a net good or a net bad. It’s pretty good I’d recommend it
The biggest problem with the Rommel scenario is that it seems to mainly be about a swifter action on the panzers and there's just a far simpler and more certain way to get the panzers into play: Jodl has the balls the wake Hitler.
The FBI was actually Extremely close to uncovering the 9/11 plot before it happened. The Hulu series The Looming Tower covers it pretty well and former FBI agent Ali Soufan has discussed it in interviews and books too. Soufan was one of the agents that investigated the bombing of the USS Cole. Through that investigation, the FBI had a lot of pieces to the puzzle. Had the CIA shared intel they had before 9/11, then they very likely would've been able to put those pieces together and prevent the attack.
I think it's great in your reaction video's that you review them on the fly without having previewed them first. Major props for that.
You should have dedicated several minutes near the end to discuss what would have made your list of what-ifs. I was curious about that. But I agree on that one regarding Napoleon going to Russia.
I would have put something related to Mao Zedong and Chiang kai shek, art school accepting Hitler, America losing the revolutionary war or adopting a monarchy system, CP3 and Kobe in the same team or Lebron staying in Cleveland.
If lebron didn't miss that dunk on draymond Green in game 7. He would be the goat
@@kimhunter6733 if Jordan wouldn’t have been playing baseball for 1.5 years, he would’ve won 8 in a row
The story about you meeting your wife is incredible. I’m an atheist and that still made me think that maybe there is some higher power making sure everything happens as it should for a reason. Sometimes life does feel too calculated to all be some coincidental string of events. Love your content, & love hearing your backstory! Honestly my favorite channel on UA-cam at the moment. Keep it up :D
Excellent post.
Sir are you a gers fan ??? i have watched your content for well over a year never ever thought i would see you with a rangers top on , imagine my shock when i seen the thumbnail lol . great videos btw keep them coming .
Normally, I don't care for recation videos, but when you add something to the mix, I enjoy watching it.
What If.. Woodrow Wilson didn't have a stroke and went for a third term...
That's not A what if but A nightmare. He's one of the contributing factors in emperor karl's death.
Any "what-if" scenario about Germany in WW2 has to revolve around Operation Barbarossa, and that's it. What if Germany fully committed to taking Moscow? What if they won the battle of Stalingrad? etc. Given the way Germany's invasion of Russia went, the Soviet Union **was** eventually going to win that war. The only question was how long it would take. As late as summer of 1943, the Allies had not reeeeally fully committed to an invasion of France yet. They knew it had to happen eventually, but they were pussyfooting around it as much as possible. It was only once it became clear that the pendulum had swung firmly against Germany in the east that concrete plans for the invasion of France really got underway, and I'm sure a lot of that had to do with the US/UK thinking that a Europe dominated by Stalin was hardly any better than a Europe dominated by Hitler.
The fall of Moscow would not win the war that was one of the virtues of the massive Soviet territory you best believe that Stailn would put every soviet person every Soviet meter between him and the Germans. The Germans capatilizing on Stalingrad really is not feasible they were heavily battered if the battle would take the same shape and the Germans would have supply issues possibly until Mid May 1943 giving the Soviets time to regroup. The western allies knew they had to penetrate Europe that was the reason for the invasion of Italy and on a smaller scale Greece/Yugoslavia. I might be wrong here but that's what I think
One what if? I'll put forward is what if Oda Nobunaga had never been assassinated. Nobunaga was a warlord during the warring states period of Japanese history and a military genius who completely revolutionized East Asian warfare through the introduction of European firearms. While he was not a Christian he was rather tolerant even having Jesuit missionaries as part of his entourage. He was killed by a subordinate shortly after becoming shogun and had he survived I think Japan liking would have succeed in conquering the Korean Peninsula and more importantly never would have gone into the same kind of isolation China and Korea did in our timeline due to how fond Nobunaga was of western culture even wearing western clothes and having a set of western plate armor made for himself. Instead it would largely keep pace with the west on technology and could quite possibly end up expanding more gradually over the course of the next couple centuries possibly into parts of Manchuria and Siberia meaning less Russian influence in the Far East and also no Qing Dynasty emerging as the Ming collapsed. Not too mention potential expansion into the Pacific which might mean a Japan that is the dominant power in the region to this day.
Ahh let’s go deep diving into VTH past videos and I found a reaction to Simon! Huge find I’m excited to see this
1) What if Julius Caesar is not assassinated?
2) What if the Black Prince lived and became king of England?
3) What if France wins the French & Indian War?
4) What if Theodore Roosevelt is president during WW1?
5) What if Ross Perot is elected president in 1992?
The Bronze Age Collapse of 1177 BC never happens. The Sea Peoples get stopped in northern Greece and at Troy. The Hittite Empire survives and the Egyptians and Assyrians remain powerful as well. The Golden Age of Greece begins much earlier, but major conflicts between the empires ensue in which probably the Greeks and the Assyrians prevail. Any thoughts on this?
The Hittites are still going to fall, maybe slightly later. I think a powerful Egypt and Assyria would prevent Persia from becoming a threat to Greece but they may themselves threaten Greece. History might go down in a similar way here but with Greece advancing faster and with different enemies.
I think an interesting what if would be if somehow Ross Perot won the 1994 election. It would’ve been interesting to see if the reform party became transformed our system into a three-party system and I think Ross Perot could’ve done some good and maybe even prevent some bad deals and bills that happened in our timeline.
P.S. Keep up the great work Chris and can you check out Monsieur Z’s Seven Ages of America Series?
This is a good point. However, keep in mind that many things that started out with good intentions later did a lot of harm. Case in point would be when the government decided to back up high risk mortgages with GSEs (government sponsored entities) to help more people own their house. The banks exploited this and created a bank crisis which brought this country to its knees. With that caveat aside, I was a Perot supporter and an alternate history scenario whete he had won would be interesting. Also, even if he had won it doesn't mean that he would have had congressional support for all his ideas.
@@bones2177 I think it definitely would’ve set a precedent though for Third Parties and Independents.
@@crusader2112 agreed that it would have given more momentum to the independent movement. Instead, it fostered the belief that any vote (independent or otherwise) was casting a vote for the Democratic Party and they would benefit. What I find mind boggling is how the radical conspiracy theorists has since associated themselves with and taken over the libertarian party. I used to be proud of claiming this party as it stood for less government involvement and being more fiscally responsible. Now I don't dare mention my libertarian leaning viewpoints unless I'm prepared to spend an endless amount of time defending myself and being treated as a nut case, flat earther, holocaust denier. government overthrow and an overall insane conspiracy theorists not grounded in reality. However, if I claim another party, but offer insight to what's going on and some possible solutions, usually my ideas are considered more beneficial than current policies and practical as well less wasteful. The prejudices are rooted deep in both sides and its saf because progress is often hampered because admission that the "other" side may have a good idea is viewed by many as treasonous, while they are quick to point out the refusal of bipartisan cooperation of the party they're opposing. I wonder if ithe current geopolitical situation is rectifiable?
Or is it already too late for the sheeple who blindly follow their messiahs?
@@bones2177 I'm not Libertarian, but I do guys like Ron Paul and I wish the Libertarian Party had more men like him in it instead of whatever the F**k it became. (pardon my language) It's a shame that most Third Parties regardless of their politics are either lead by crazies, or they aren't big enough yet and the media won't even give them any attention.
@@crusader2112 I no longer claim any specific party as they have changed so much. I didn't mean to imply that you were any specific affliation. I was simply using that as an example of the drastic party changes on the political journey that I've endured in my life.
I just watched the video you were in with: JD & The History Chick.
I had no idea who The History Chick was and I've only recently subscribed to JD, but seeing all 3 of you passionately talk about history, was pretty amazing. Especially hearing you, lol! Don't get me wrong, I like the other two, but whenever you spoke up, I was like: "yup that's my boy, Chris representing VTH!" And a wave of pride and joy would come over me. 😅
excellent, keep up the Simon and Atun Shei reactions! the three of you guys have *excellent* content
That Rangers top makes me feel happy
His "Biographics" channel deals with many historically important people. I would love to see you do reactions to some of these.
I think it would be really cool to see your list on the top 10 most crucial turning points in history
24:10 Well, one thing Rommel might have actually done that didn't happen in our timeline: Make sure Hitler is notified earlier (since according to Extra Credits, he slept pretty long and no one dared to wake him. I could see someone like Rommel ordering to wake him be enough support for someone to do it), that the tanks that were under his direct orders could be send out earlier. In our time, they took multiple days to get there, now imagine them basically being there for an attack on the still freshly conquered beaches
Lets not forget even if Rommel had repelled the D-Day invasions Germany might've still had to contend with another invasion south of France with operation dragoon. The allied amphibious invasion that sped up the liberation of France. I could see it being successful just as it was in our timeline with German forces being tied down reinforcing the north. We'd probably see a lot less progress on the western front possibly leading to a complete soviet occupation of Germany. And even worse Stalin going back on his promise and making the entirety of Germany a communist satellite state. So in a way Rommel not being present during D-Day saves Germany from an even worse fate. At least that's how i see it playing out.
@@themanwiththehamandtheplan9987 Well, the repelling of the Allies could have also resulted in more people supporting operation valkyrie, actually killing Hitler by changing one of the few things that helped him survive (arm the 2nd bomb that couldn't be in our time line, prevent the move to the barrack instead of a bunker (would have contained the blast and therefore hit more people) or prevent the moving of the bag away from Hitler (someone might be prepared to go out with Hitler to ensure the success), that they could surrender before the Soviets hold large amounts of German territory, making it harder to dismantle Germany. There are a lot of what ifs. Heck, they could even offer Germany becoming a military bulwark to hold off communism from entering the rest of Europe, something especially Churchill will Operation Unthinkable (the Allies and remains of the Wehrmacht attack Russia after the peace in Europe) would have probably appreciated
Yea I don't think that we can say Rommel not being in Normandy was a massive difference; his absence was merely one of many factors that impeded their actions at Normandy. Hitler had already made the obvious miscalculation of spreading the panzers around all over France which isn't that smart when you know the Allies are going to focus a massive number of troops in one area rather than dispersing them when they invade mainland Europe. And Hitler was only asleep until roughly 11am, yet it still took days for reinforcements to arrive; they refused to believe it wasn't a misdirection for Calais because the Allied deception plan had been so comprehensively successful so him being awake 5 hours earlier wouldn't have made that much of a difference.
The Nazis were similarly over confident in the security of the Enigma as with their spy network, which had been completely/mostly compromised by the Allies which only further hindered their D-Day response. In fact they were so sure they weren't being deceived about D-Day that the notorious Agent Garbo (who fed or corroborated plenty of the D-Day misinformation the Nazis were getting) was awarded the Iron Cross by Hitler himself 2 months later, never realizing he was working for the Allies.
I would have loved to see "what if Harold Godwinson does not follow William flank retreat and keep his ground leading to the failure of normand invasion defeat" as top 1.
What is your take about it?
Would have liked to see this. England would be much more like Germany or Denmark, probably not so imperialist in the early modern/modern era. Would have totally changed the history of a country which like it or not ends up being the most significant country globally from the 18th to 20th centuries.
@@sam1111979 the Normans were the first to invade Ireland, so would probably have an Irish speaking Ireland without any of the sectarian violence of The Troubles.
Millions, if not billions, of people would not exist.
I love when you react to top 10's or lists. Get your opinion on so much so quick
In regards to the 9/11 death tolls, I think he was speaking towards not just the victims on the day of, but those that passed later from side effects.
If COVID never came I would have never met my current fiancé. At the time I had been accepted in to a Harvard Summer School program for an introductory neuroscience course. I planned on traveling to Boston to stay on campus, but COVID hitting hard in February forced the class into online learning. While I was attending the class, I met my fiancé and we hit it off. If COVID never came, I would’ve been at Harvard on that day.
Been a minute since I watched a VTH video lol , still waiting for the " Jeremy Clarkson the greatest raid of all time" reaction tho Chris 😂
Another interesting What-if is the possibility is the Ming Dynasty discovering America before the Spanish Empire did. Though I don't know if it can be boiled down to a specific moment that could have gone differently, there was at least the potential for it.
25:00 It will always amaze me when talking about the French Revolution of 1789, they use that painting. That painting is depicting the July Revolution of 1830 also in France.
My biggest what if would be, What if Henry VIII got his divorce
Huge change possible there.
About Martin Luther, I believe he is referring to the cultural and social differences that inevitably would have occurred had Tuetoberg been won by the Romans instead, a big reason for the break in the church did have to do with Cultural and Social differences influencing the point of view of those who broke from the church in general. Or at least thats my understanding of it.
It could even be argued the other way around, that if Rome had been able to conquer the remainder of Europe, Rome could have been in a stronger political position where they would not have felt the need to try to incorporate Christianity as an eventual pseudo state-religion. Also, anything that would have caused a different bunch of less insane emperors would've had a big effect on the Roman Empire
Thanks for the lovely video chris!
Love the new top mate !!!!
On the "super gun". Let's assume they actually managed to fire the thing at least once. How in the world would they have ever managed to actually aim the thing with any degree of reliability? It's a huge distance for artillery and then throw in wind and the Earth's rotation on top of that. Also worth considering - how many shots could they have fired before the barrel warped or had to be relined? Not buying it at all.
Exactly what I was thinking. The inaccuracies of the V1 and V2 show the limitations of precisely controlling raw power at that time. Later radar and radio controls would have helped but...
15:47 Every German interested in Roman history: "You sure about that?" Like, the Varusschlacht (battle of Varus, how we call it in German) is one of the most famous events in Roman history here. In 2009, there were even a ton of documentaries, simply because the 2k anniversary was there. Might mainly be so, because it was basically stopping the advance into Germany and when talking about the impact of an historic event, you tend to look at your own region first
I love that this is a merger of two excellent UA-cam channels.
One of my top 5 favorite channels. And I'm subbed to over a hundred
I take some issue with the way Simon so confidently states counterfactual scenarios that really are little more than pure speculation. It's especially ridiculous to say that if Varus hadn't lost his legions in Teutoburg that would have led to no Martin Luther 1500 years later. What-If scenarios are a fun and interesting exercise but should probably be kept to the event's immidiate consequences in the following years or decades and not extrapolated over centuries.
Totally agree. Excellent points. Although……..I think if Henry VIII had a son with Catherine of Aragon, who lived to continue the Tudor dynasty, it’s fair to say there’d be no Church of England. Thoughts?
@@comusrules1244 Yeah I think you're probably right. That's actually a really good example of a good what-if scenario, as we know a lot about the causes and effects of the events that led to the Church of England.
However, that doesn't mean that England would necessarily be Catholic today. Even if Henry had had a son we might still see a Church of England, though it would be different from the one we know, and probably wouldn't have been implemented in Henry's lifetime as he was pretty staunchly catholic as far as I know.
Europe was still very much in the middle of the Reformation when Henry died and the incentives of breaking with Rome (mainly the transfer of power/wealth from the churches to the crown) would probably still be tempting to Henry's successors and his nobles. Also, I think England's trade with and proximity to the Netherlands, France and Scandinavia would inevitably lead to England having to deal with these ideas one way or the other.
So yeah, the Church of England we know would not exist, but there would probably still have been religious tension and conflict within England in the 16th and 17th centuries, the outcome of which would determine the ultimate course of state religion in England.
At least that's my take on it 🙂. I don't know a lot about the reformation in England and would love to learn more.
A more Latinized Germany could lead to a mix between Latin and Germanic languages, which means a German world that could have closer ties to Rome. The protestant reformation did happen mostly in the German speaking world after all, over say the Latin speaking world. (Yes, French Wars of religion not withstanding)
If Germany had listened to Rommel asking for the panzer divisions in north France he asked for, I think it could have been a big game changer.
I don’t know if him not being there changed anything, more of the fact that the forces needed weren’t there
It’s more of “If Germany hadn’t fallen for the phantom army” what If then anything else
I think this would have led to a lot more deaths and maybe another invasion later if this one had failed. Or possibly America would have just threw 2500+ more bodies until they had a foothold. Possibly a more airborne intensive invasion. However I think the same result would have eventually occurred. Germany was already getting pummeled on eastern front and you can only resist so long when faced with someone who is willing to sacrifice what the Americans were. But I do think it would have been a lot more costly. Remember a big part of winning the war was Alan Turing cracking the enigma machine. Once that was cracked without Germany's knowledge the allies had a major edge.
Love this series. I think rather than looking at historical "what-ifs" scenarios as a ranking, I would look at it as purely a list; A list of events that would have changed the course of history in a significant ways. I think when you make it a ranking, it opens up more arguments than agreements. If the Muslims win at the Battle of Tours, that changes the history of France and Spain, and Europe as a result.
Operation Uranus had been postponed for 10 days in November 1942 due to logistical build-up problems on the Soviet side. In these 10 days the USA started Operation Torch in North West Africa. I think it was a coincidence that the starting point of these two operations almost coincided, but Hitler did decide in these 10 days to send the majority of the Luftwaffe from the Eastern Front to the African Front. How different would the position of Paulus' troops have been if all those necessary aircraft had remained at the Oostfront for support?
Love the Jersey man 😂
As a german my biggest What if (and no, i don't want to meme) is what if the relief at the Siege of Vienna comes too late. What if the walls fell? Would the Holy League be able to reconquer the land on the Balkan? Would the Ottomans invade more of Central Europe? Maybe even spread the muslim faith over Europe. That could or would change Europe completely.
Also, what if Hitler had destroyed Britain at Dunkirk? This would have decimated Britain's exiting army and could have had affected the Brits momentum at the time although I don't know if that would have been enough to KEEP them at bay. Churchill was pretty determined to stop Hitler, after all
The main problem surrounding Vienna is even if it fell it would have been taken back the armies well not arriving on time would still be there to fight
A great video, as always!
I do not understand how the battle of Stalingrad is not on the list.
The alternate reality of failed JFK Assassination is best described in the series Red Dwarf named Tikka To Ride. Must see! :)
"i dont think it achieved the aim that the assassin was hoping for", well techincally he aimed at franz shot and killed him so he achieved his aim :>
The assassin's group was hoping for freedom somehow and they had to wait until 1919 to get it
GLASGOW RANGERS 🏴🇬🇧
Charlemagne adopts Roman primogeniture style succession. Throwing out partible inheritance and leaving the Frankish empire to remain united
I've always pointed to the assassination of Caeser as one of the biggest what ifs in history.
My favorite what if is what if the untimely death of the great khan didn't happen and the mongols invade central europe.
I disagree some with your characterization of the "success" of the assassination of Archduke Ferdinand.
Were they successful in the sense that the assassination lead to a result that the plotter's expected or to Serbia's immediate benefit? Well, no. It didn't lead to an uprising in Bosnia and Serbia suffered greatly in the war.
But, did it further the greater goals/movement that the plotter's were a part of? Absolutely. The plotter's end goals were to cause the breakaway of the Slavic areas of the Austro-Hungarian empire and eventually create a pan-Slavic state, a Yugoslavia if you will, which the assassination and the war did directly lead to.
It's kind of like the Tet Offensive in that way. It didn't achieve the aims the North Vietnamese thought it would, but it did prove to be a decisive action toward their winning the war.
And WW1 also lead to the total collapse of the Austro-Hungarian and Ottoman empires, two powers that were vying for the control over Balkans for hundreds of years. Serbia did take huge losses in WW1, but politically it was better off after the war.
I may be wrong but I thought the point he was trying to make was that the assassination was the excuse they were looking for. They most likely had several other circumstances either in existence or brewing that could have led to the same result. However, the likelihood that the assassination attempt was actually successful wasn't assured and almost failed several times.
I agree with your assessment of the tet offensive. It was more of a publicity victory than a military one. Still, it did help them achieve their aims just not as they had first thought it would.
Serbia was also destroyed by the war Bosnia was underrepresented in the First renditions of Yugoslavia and the Second World War came and destroyed them once again
Any "what ifs" about events like D-day are difficult because so many things could have gone differently. For example, in Eye of the Needle the author speculates about the existence of one hypothetical German spy who figures out Operation Fortitude and the deception about allied forces. Consider also the destroyers that went in close to shore without the planned air support to bombard German defenses.
The reason why you could argue that the Romanization of Germany proper could affect the protestant reformation, was because at the time of Martin Luther the Holy Roman Empire (HRE) was increasingly being seen as a mostly German project. At that time it ruled mostly Germans, German was the prominent language for the Empire for most functions and their was a rising pressure to view the Empire as a German state more then a Multistate empire. So if Romanization happened, a lot of that German identity that was used to separate the German people and princely states of the HRE is lost therefore potentially changing the reformation.
That's what I thought too
Here is one of my favorite scenarios I like to think about and that is what if the Roman Empire successfully industrialized, given the Romans already had water-powered machines, I wonder if the Romans pursued this further how much this would have changed history.
I have an extremely hard time believing that the Conservative Monarchy of Austria- Hungary would have become a beacon of tollerance
I think Franz Ferdinand was much more tolerant than his uncle, and he would have become Emperor in 1916.
You have me curious about the Napoleon one and the idea of how much better or worse things would be had he retained his power and influence over Europe and left it at that. I can't say I know a lot about how he would have ran things but it does intrigue me. I've wanted to read up more on him and his time in history for a while, just have to get around to it.
I've spent the last year reading and watching videos on Napoleon and his marshalls and im glad i did, its really exciting!
@@emilocfc3641 Yeah, it's a fascinating time. I tend to find myself particularly interested as well in the Navel battles and ships of that time. That seed being planted by my love of the film Master & Commander. :)
@@levisimpson516 Good film, a Naval battle in that time period i would do research on is Battle of Trafalgar such an important battle for Britain!
yet another really cool video
Yass mate love the top Mon the Rangers WATP 🔴⚪🔵
That shirt 😍😍
Hmm, okay some just for fun suggestions of what if scenarios:Mongke Khan survives long enough for Hungary and Poland to be conquered, Julian the Apostate doesn't die in the middle east, Mexica Indians capture enough of Cortez's gear during the Spanish break out of their capital, Ethiopia is conquered in the Adal war, the USA amakes helium more accessible for airships, medieval Spain doesn't toss all the platinum into the Atlantic and treasure from Aurengzebs fleet is found right after delcolonization.
Love the top!💙 enjoyed the video also
Nice Rangers shirt 🔵🔴⚪
I think a very important what if that often gets overlooked is if the American Revolution hadn’t happened or had failed. Let’s say that Washington doesn’t escape NYC in the middle of the night in 1776 and he and his forces are captured by the British. The Revolution fails, and the colonies come under even harsher British control. This ensures British supremacy in the world and prevents modern American values from being developed.
Wars like the War of 1812, the Mexican-American War, the Civil War, and the countless wars against the Natives never happen. In fact, the Natives will most likely become a major player in North American politics since the British will most likely continue their policy of not expanding westward, at least for a while.
I think another huge consequence of this is how it affects France. If the Revolution fails, then France never gets involved in the war and they don’t go bankrupt as quickly. The French Revolution may not even happen since the people saw how rebelling against a monarchy failed last time. If it does happen, it will probably be a few decades down the line. This would have major consequences for Europe. Nationalism might not develop or might develop differently, and Napoleon might not get his chance to rise to emperor. The entire political landscape of Europe and the world would be completely different than it was in our timeline.
I think this missed the largest what if of history and Chris covered this recently- the what if "Constantine is defeated by Milvian Bridge" and does not bring tolerance to the Christian religion to the Roman empire.
One further what if for the English speaking world is much more multi-faceted and it's "1066"..... "So what if Harald Hardrada does not invade northern England" or he does invade and "Harold Godwinson loses at Stamford Bridge" and "What if , despite the above, the Anglo Saxons stay in formation at the top of the hill against Duke William" if all the other events happen as historically.
I don't watch Simon's channel as much lately because it seems like he grew a big head and comes off more preaching at me then telling me information.. Idk it's just not the same as the older stuff. I see great potential with Vlogging Thru History, tho. I love it. Very interesting and intriguing. Life long fan right here! Refreshing to see someone being themselves on a video and not playing a part. 😄
Honestly, while Russia was undeniably the hammer I think Napoleons invasion of Spain was the nail. The invasion of Spain and the inability of his Marshals to put down the guerillas ruined his position among the other nations and it kept his best troops bogged down. His brief time in Spain was cut short because nations such as Austria tried to take advantage of it. If Napoleon never invaded Spain, tried to deal with the royal family diplomatically rather than by force like all other conquered nations or at the very least put a ruler on the throne that was not only Spanish but loyal to Napoleon rather than his own brother, Spain wouldn't be as big of a problem as it turned out to be.
if only had a few more Suchet's
Napoleon biggest mistake in my opinion was attacking his ally, Spain. There was no reason for him to do that. Because of that he was short on thousand of men for his Russian campaign. And the Empire now was facing enemys on two fronts, with is never good.
What ifs : Aztec culture surviving, Library of Alexandria, House of Wisdom in Baghdad, just a lot of information lost throughout the ages
I'd love to see your Top 10 What Ifs of History.
What if Gore won 2000?
A few results from that happening:
1.Probably we would have a better climate policy, since Gore probably being the most mainstream environmentalist Senator at the time.
2.A more reasoned response to 9/11, meaning no invasion of Iraq and Saddam being in power for more time than in our timeline.
3. If we presume that Gore is a two term president, then we wouldn't get Obama until 2012, since I think party fatigue of having Democrats in power for 16 years (1993-2009) would lead to Republican holding the post for 1 term like Bush,Sr. did in our timeline.
4. Obama would be re-elected in 2016 against Trump, since Trump would put his foot in his mouth saying something racist in front of Obama during a debate.
5. Hillary would probably win 2020 against Ted Cruz after Trump's bombing his campaign with being a racist in front of Obama in 2016.
That sounds like a worse outcome than what's actually happened lol
@@britishginge4474 How so?
I personally thought the whole section about Teutonburg forest was very misleading and far-fetched. In fact Teutonburg often comes up on my list of most overrated battles in terms of its long term ‘what if’ impact. Yes the Romans lost 3 full legions in the Forrest. But their response was to swarm Germania with 8 more over the next 7 years. They conducted several successful campaigns in Germania, crushing the Germanic coalition under Arminius at the Battle of Idistaviso in 16 AD, and decimating the Germanic tribes over this whole period.
The Roman withdrawal to the Rhine frontier the same year was motivated by a realisation that Germania itself would never be economically profitable for the Romans to posses. They’d lose more money and manpower occupying then they could extract from taxation. In an alternative history where the Teutonburg ambush doesn’t happen, those 3 legions under Varus would just be withdrawn to the Rhine in about a decade or so. And in 25 years or less most if not all the soldiers killed at Teutonburg would be be pensioned out of the army and begin making nuisances of themselves in the provinces.
The Romans conducted many scorched earth campaigns across the Rhine in the decades and centuries after Teutonburg. I know of at least 2 in the 3rd century under Carcalla and Thrax, though their poorly documented. But if Germania was worth conquering the Romans would have conquered it any time between 9 AD to 395 AD. They had plenty of opportunities in the near 4 century long period.
It's a fact that Rom stopped expanding toward the east, creating a non latinised Germanic Europe that later invadet and dismantled the Western Roman Empire. All those events snowballed from Teuteburg. You also conveniently omitting the fact that the romanised part of Germania was very, very profitable for the Empire. There is absolut no reason to believe that they wouldn't have tried the same east of the Rhine.
Karl Karlos - By ‘romanised part of Germania’ I assume you mean Germania Inferior and Superior. Your claiming that these provinces were ‘very very profitable’ for the Empire, but can you actually back that up with hard statistics? Tell me, how much tax revenue did the Roman Empire extract from these 2 provinces? Was it enough to cover the cost of the 4 legions normally stationed there? (For the record, Egypt netted the Roman treasury at a conservative estimate 250 million Sestertius per annum, which covered the wages for almost the entire Roman army of Augustus’s era)
And for your assertion that its “a fact that Rom stopped expanding toward the east... All those events snowballed from Teuteburg” as I’ve already stated the Romans didn’t abandon Germania after Teuteburg. Teutenburg happened in 9 AD. Between 9 - 16 AD Germanicus led 8 legions into Germania, devastating the whole region then decisively crushed the Germans at the Battle of Idistaviso in 16 AD. 7 years after their defeat Teuteburg. So it wasn’t Teuteburg that made the Romans stop expanding East. It was that fact Germania simply wasn’t economical to occupy or easy to defend, and it never would be. The Rhine on the other hand provided a frontier that was much easier for an army with limited resources to defend. Germania beyond the Rhine was not worth what it would cost to occupy it. I don’t know how much clearer I can make that to you.
@@timhare9867 All you need to do is to look at major roman metropolis and settlements such as Colonia Ulpia Traiana (Cologne), Treverorum (Trier), Novaesium (Neuss) or Castra Bonnensia (Bonn), who excisted for centuries, to see that Germania was not the underdeveloped backwater you tried to paint it. If you are seriously interested in tax returns and such stuff I suggest you make your own research.
Karl Karlos - Colonia nor any of the other major towns along the Rhine were never ‘metropolis’s’. Colonia’s population never exceeded more then about 50,000 people even when it served as the province’s capital. 1/20 that of Rome itself.
And for the record I’ve done plenty of research on this topic. Hence why I know what provinces were profitable for the Romans to hold and which were not, and I can actually provide hard data to back up my claims. The fact you can’t provide any hard statistical data to backup your claims, and won’t even acknowledge the Battle of Idistaviso reversed the Roman losses at Teutoburg makes it clear you have no idea what your talking about. Come back when you can actually backup your claims with hard data.
- The UVF go to war with the Home Rulers in 1914.
- Harold wins the Battle of Hastings.
- The Midnight Ride fails to alert Hancock and Adams.
To assume only one or two scenarios could be wrong because as soon as one considers the "no Sarajevo " no WW1 there are still too many to count other possible scenarios that could have caused a similar outcome .Some people believe that events are preordained anyway. There are dozens of possible scenarios that i can think of right now over the Battle of Britain but events took us down one main road even though there were a vast amount of side roads that were ignored.
HES WEARING A RANGERS SHIRT 🇬🇧 I didn’t think it was possible for this channel to get better
Got it at Ibrox a few weeks ago :)
I would have put up a couple scenarios, some dark some a little more curious.
I would love to cover these myself but I dont have enough resources nor the editing skills to make it.
1. What if the 1923 Beerhall Putsch succeeded?
2. What if Caesar survived the Eides of March?
3. What if the War of Independence was won by Britain?
4. What If the US never invaded Vietnam?
5. What if the Lincoln assassination failed?
1. You could see the start of WW2 earlier
2. I honetsly don't know
3. That might start a war with Spain for dominance over North America
4. I don't think it would be that severe
5. Lincoln might have overseen a harsher period of reconstruction in America
When I taught World History I called Europe, in 1914, a sealed room with gas soaked rags, dried old newspapers, a floor covered with sawdust. The assassination of Franz Ferdinand was a match tossed into that room. It was the spark that lead to a chain of events. If the Austrian Archduke has avoided assassination some different would have been the spark.
My dad closed down the farm after granddad died in 1969. He was looking at getting an education. He was close to going to postal school, a safe government job in those days, but he had to get a chest x-ray(!) and mail it within a few days to prove he didn't have tuberculosis. Also, they only accepted people later in the year. So he ended up doing nursing school that began earlier, not wasting six months.
15 years later, he met my mum, a lab tech at the local hospital.
Postal school give him more time to get a chest x-ray and accept students twice a year.. and I'm no more.
In regards to your Rommel question: No, it wouldn't have changed much. As you said, he wasn't even supreme commander in the West, that was von Rundstedt and both of them did not agree on how to handle the invasion and Hitler resolved the dispute with dispersing the panzer divisions. Had Rommel been there, little would have changed because Operation Fortitude had both Rundstedt and Rommel convinced that Normandy was just a diversionary for Calais.
In that Korea 2 scenario, he mentioned the possibility of US v China. Of major note: at that time, China wasn't anywhere CLOSE to how strong it is today. Meaning, they would have gotten flattened.
I don't think either side would risk a war
My degrees are all in history but i have a focus on contingency and causality. Why and what if are hugely important to understanding why and how things work, have worked, and caneven help predict how things will work regarding different variables.
If you’re going to do a What If list that includes anything from the French Revolution, I humbly suggest looking at the self-denying decree put forth by none other than Robespierre. Huge turning point for the Revolution.
I think the "what if" is the must fun part of History studies.
What if Hitler had been accepted into Art School? What if Titanic had not hit the iceberg? What if Robin Hood hadn't been murdered? What if the Dinosaurs and Mammoths hadn't been wiped out? What if Caesar hadn't been murdered?
Loved Simon when he was on visualpolitik en.
If you like a good What If, might I recommend Wizards and Warriors' What if the Mongols Attacked Central Europe
It basically hinges on the fact that the Khan doesn't die and the Mongol generals don't travel back to Mongolia and instead can attack central Europe.
My go-to "What if?" is always, "What if Constantine had lost the battle of Milvian Bridge?" Aside from the obvious and direct impact of Constantine not becoming the unquestioned emperor, I wonder how much it could/would have affected the growth of Christianity. Without Constantine, there's no guarantee of increasing acceptance of Christianity in the empire (at least, not on the same time frame), he doesn't convene the first Council of Nicaea that is a huge step in unifying rival Christian groups, etc.