@@DogWalkerBill I'd say he is sadly one of the most famous people who will ever live horrible people are famous and sadly good people most of the time are not
Our historians actually split the history of Georgia into before and after tamerlane. There are still plenty of hand carved caves in the hills and mountains of Eastern Georgia visible today dating to that time. Whole generations ended up living in exile. So much so that they didn't even remember their village's name when they eventually cane back. My village being a prime example of that. It's called Tsinandali, which cones from the georgian word Tsinandeli, which is an adjective turned noun, meaning the place from before. Plenty of other villages surrounding it have names with similar origin.
That’s crazy how Tamerlane’s invasion slowed the Ottoman Empire for around 50 years. I think he forgot to mention the interregnum and civil wars that took place in the Ottoman Empire as a result of Timur’s invasion. If he did not exist, it may have been possible for the Ottomans to land in mainland Italy as well, and defeat the Mamluks much earlier. This 50 year advantage could have been extremely beneficial, and there would’ve been a much more powerful Ottoman Empire
I disagree because you could make the argument that Tamerlane invasions destabilized the region and made the other Muslim powers much weaker making ottoman conquest of those countries much easier. There’s no guarantee that without Tamerlane that the ottomans would’ve been able to successfully defeat the other powers in the region
@@Manunido Actually most of those weaker Muslim powers pledged allegiance to Tamerlane so were unharmed. So Tamerlane really did slow down the Ottoman Empire a lot and destabilized the region for a long time.
Man Unido the Mamluks were not significantly affected by Tamberlane’s existence. Tamberlane’s destabilization of Georgia would be how you mentioned, and he covered it in the video. The Mamluks, for example would most likely have been the same without Timur. To visualize just how much Timur affected the Ottoman Empire, it is necessary to determine the immediate effects of the Ottoman Sultan’s capture: (Civil war between the sons). A really bloody civil war which almost split the empire in two. Other nations took advantage of this weakness and started favoring one prince over the other. The very existence of the Ottoman Empire was under threat. The Ottomans defeated an entire Crusader force at Varna and Kosovo in the late 14th Century, don’t you think they would be much more powerful without these internal problems and a lesser threat in the East? To your comment on the more powerful Muslim neighbors, besides the Mamluks, the road to the Middle East was open. And they weren’t significantly affected by Tamberlane like the Ottomans. This conquest of the Mamluks would have been sooner if Tamberlane had not existed (The Ottoman Empire had more experience with gunpowder which is why they conquered the Middle East in our timeline, now imagine this 100 years earlier)
Yeah I don’t like how he characterises the ottomans as just lazy haram users in an orientalists stereotype, or arguing that the ottoman decline was predestined, when it wasn’t. As he said, the butterfly effect and more time to consolidate rules could have had a very different outcome.
@@200lbAfricanPounderAllah has not taken any son, nor has there ever been with Him any deity. [If there had been], then each deity would have taken what it created, and some of them would have sought to overcome others. Exalted is Allah above what they describe [concerning Him].
let me tell you that then name ,,george'' for the georgian kings was very common at that time-i mean,we had no less then 12 ,,george'' as the king till 1801.(im a native georgian so thats why i know my countrys history) also,i dont get the line of ,,Someone should make a wacky sitcom about that couple''.could you please explain?i'll be very thankful if you do.
@@jemobolqvadze6905 Georgia is a female name in English speaking countries (and probably elsewhere). So, "Georgia under the rule of King George" sounds like King George is controlling Georgia's life. His wife or daughter or something
I want a video where he opens by saying, "Literally nothing changes." And ends it there. Also, "And I'm guessing that changes things," about Shakespeare is a massive understatement.
Still I think the guy who wrote this subversie Tamerlane play would have probably found different inspiration to do the same thing. Like Genghis Khan or something.
@Mr. Pokhrel That would be awesome, but I think you'll never be able to recover enough data. You would literally need every detail of every single person's life in all of history to make it completely accurate.
@@El-s Julius Caesar would just be a successful President or Prime Minister in today's world and let Augustus take his place. Less bloody, less military career Better President that Trump or Reagan by miles
@Dodamni qaytarib beringlar Which didn't last long after his death and he built it upon the graves of millions It would have been better for a Time traveler to kill his parents and introduce 19th century Science and Industrialization in Persia
Timur’un Türklüğü Babürname’de bile geçer bu gerizekalı hala moğol diyor delirecem yaw güya Türk değilmiş de Türkleşmiş Moğolmuş🤣🤣😃 Moğollaşmış Türk olmasın o sakın Cengiz Han Barlas Tatarlarını moğollaştırdı
Botchamania JEEZUS I’m more talking the later development of the alternate history scenario, around the same time that eu4 takes place. Not all the way back then.
@@trevorpapineau7302 ah, you could easily do that in the beginning of a regular game with some console commands. idk much about modding tho so you'll have to ask someone else to do it that way.
9:55 On the map: If Temerlane broke the Golden Horde, it should still be somewhere on this map. The Cossacks may create such a state, or several. Keeping central government over such a great area is a task. I think that if the Moscowian Duchy didn't untite Russia, some other Duchy would. There was a lot of competition over ruling the Rus. If you assume the PLC takes over Russia either earlier during unification or later during a war, it should spread to the North. It might fracture, just like with the Cossacks, it might not. It was already a bi-national state, it could become a tri-national one. It had been proposed in the past. So this map really stems from the PLC not having a competitor in Asia, assuming the Golden Horde isn't one, and it's people breaking off to form different states. Which might happen, might not. It depends how much of a variable religious war against the Golden Horde would be. And how spoiled the nobility would b become. I think the biggest take-away is that a continent-spanning state needs strong leadership, which the Polish nobility did not grant. They would need an Ivan to make a stronger monarchy, if they were to hold those lands.
Fascinating, that's all I have to say. However, I have a suggestion, I think you should list your sources for these videos in the description of your video to strengthen your credibility and the ability of people who agree with you to defend their opinions in debate.
This is one of your best videos yet! Love the effort you put into the map and the way you described how the divergence point affected each region, keep up the great work!
Iran/Central Asia was never impressive after timur! that's how bad the impact was. The dude literally wiped out 95% of the whole Iranian plateau's population. What do you expect?
@@salR2401It impossible to wipe out millions of people , without any greater technological advances which Timurlan do not have .And he also rebuild the cities which were destroyed by Genghis khan and make the Samarkand the centre of Science and Art .Which called Timurud renaissance
10:37 Sweden managed to take over the PLC because the nobility basically refused to fight. They saw Sweds as liberators from a bad king or something. The longevity of Greater Sweden hinges on it's king's willingness to actually rule the lands instead of just robbing them. It could theoretically survive.
That would be interesting considering the Poles being catholic. Not sure about the Baltics though. Maybe it would later become a loose touch confederation or something later on?
1632 by Eric Flint. A Virginia mining town appears in the 30 years war and teams up with Gustavus Adolphus. Things get a little revolutionary... Good fun books, and especially the later ones are very well researched collaborations
The India part is completely wrong. North India hadn’t “always been controlled by some nomadic tribe” history of north India didn’t start in 1200. The reason why 1200-1740s was dominated by nomadic tribes is because around 1100s, India and much of Asia went through civilizational collapse due to changing climates, which allowed Turkic nomads to dominate India, Iran, Egypt and Anatolia. Mongols rose for the same reason. But by 1500s, climate had become stable again, allowing for more stable govts. Delhi sultanate would have still collapsed, they were already collapsing. In 1500s, this afghan general sher shah suri took over, he came to India under Delhi sultanate, I don’t see why that still wouldn’t happen. He employed an Indian general as his 2nd in command, Hemu. After Sher shah Suris death, Hemu took over, and he realized that if India was to stop the cycle of Turkic nomads invading India, he would have to expel afghan and Turkic lords so foreign invaders don’t constantly have local support. If Hemu still comes to power, he would still expel the afghans and Turks, and just like Mughals would create a stable, expanding empire. Since Indians were way better at economics and encouraged trade, I don’t see why India wouldn’t be even more united and advanced. Also, europeans weren’t able to conquer India not because of the Mughal empire, but because they just couldn’t afford to send enough people. They consistently lost to every Indian kingdom, even tiny ones. So I don’t see the timeline changing until 1700s. I don’t see India breaking down again either, since afghan and Turkic warlords were a huge reason why neither Mughals or Marathas could keep India unified, who in this timeline wouldn’t exist anymore
Really interesting to know. Wouldn’t this just mean that Britain would still conquer India in its entirety in late 18th/ early 19th century as Indian militaries are not really that good and European ones were and lead to Britain just conquering most of India (as they would prevent France from doing so because navy and they were the only force in eastern India? (Either that or India becomes a 2nd China depends on how stable this Indian empire is but one empire can’t hold on to power forever so I would say it would collapse into small states and Britain would seize it all so the Dutch wouldn’t survive and Britain would be more powerful, possibly with France or Germany forming an alliance with Russia (and the other allying Britain) but I think it would be France because Germany and Russia aren’t historic friends) either way Germany would win WW1 and whoever the sided with would also win. (Britain would be more powerful as India would be richer and as Britain would conquer India Britain would be more powerful by extension.
@@bladefox-ik5iy Not really. The Maratha army matched the European armies in technology and tactics having hired French advisers. A plains based Hindu empire would have done the same or could have caught up in technology depending on how capable the rulers were. Similarly India's naval prowess was there though the Mughals didn't make any attempts to become a naval power, while IRL Marathas did so quite successfully.
bladefox2298 again, India feel because no central power when British arrived, it all depends on if major empires can hold on to power by European expansion. This would be easier to do since Turk and afghan lords don’t constantly support foreign nomads to invade India. Also India, unlike China and Japan, never closed itself off. India was always open to new influences, hence Indian military was always more advanced than China and Japan’s. While India’s outward approach had decline by 1200s, Indian kingdoms were always more outward looking than Turkic, so India should also have a stronger military at this point
thanks for giving georgia attention. when there are videos about timur georgia is always overlooked. after timur invasions georgia was depopulated and weakened 50 year later georgia split in three kingdom making it easy target of ottmans and safavids. if not timur may georgia fought off ottomans and persians. georgia was recovering from mongol rule but it was still powerful before timur invasion.
One must remember that the polish lithuanian commowealth happened because of the livonian war. With a weaker russia, lithuania should have no problems defeating them without polish help. Therefore there would be no big Poland
Lithuania was still under union with polish kings and livonian war might very well happen against Danes or Swedes. The power inbalance was far too much in Polands favor and the idea of union of lublin didn't appear out of thin air, it was an effect of decades of consolidation
Amazing scenario - the one thing I have to say is, in a scenario where the Habsburgs are completely taken off the map, I think you failed to assess the effect that would have on the influence of france It seems overwhelmingly likely to me that without the power of balance established by the austrians and spanish, the french would have likely been able to conquer belgium and the netherlands, having the knock -on effect of denying dutch presence in india to the profit of the french, or alternatively to the portuguese since the dutch wouldn't have had the chance to steal portuguese colonies such as ceylon
I love that the point of departure in the alternate history book, "years of rice and salt" takes place when Tamerlano decides to siege west, not east. He still dies though
Great documentary & a well informed video ! Nice job ! Also just as a side note: Tamerlan is a name used in Europe derived from his Persian title *Teimur-e-Lang* which quite literally translates into *Teimur the crippled* ! *This is because during a decisive battle, Iranians made him crippled for life* !! (It's not because he was lame from childhood or anything !!! Loool that's an English word Btw who even came up with that theory ??) Also I'm surprised that you didn't focus on Iran itself as the mainland & seat of his empire ?!! The more I read history the more I always come to hear the name *Iran* !! Man, Iran is the giant of world history !!!! *From the very beginning they had a great & influential civilization & culture & language* (Tamerlan spoke Persian btw, as did the mughals & even the ottomans for a long time at first) *Iranians literally introduced to the world the concept of SUPER POWER during the 1st Persian empire !!!! What's interesting is that the Achaemenid empire was the first & last HUMANITARIAN worldwide super power !!!! They literally introduced human rights & abolished slavery* !!! Iranians were in contact with Zoroaster (an Iranian himself), abraham, Jesus and Mohammed !!! Fought almost every single major character in history ! & meanwhile managed to contribute sooo much to human evolution & development that I don't even know where to start listening them !!! I have great respect & admiration for Iran & the beautiful people of Iran :))) If there are any Iranians reading this , *Thank you for your existence* ;))
3:03 Although it doesn't matter in the end, the details of the collapse of the Illkhanate was different: the Ilkhanate had already collapsed by 1335, decades before Timur's reign had started. although some remnants of it survived till 1350s (Chobanids) , 1370s (Jalairids) and 1380s (Kartids) with the last two being destroyed by Timur himself and Kartids having an actual claim to the Ilkhanate's throne. So claiming that Timur destroyed the Ilkhanate may be technically true, but he only destroyed the leftovers. The collapse of the Ilkhanate wouldn't have been delayed if Timur hadn't existed, because it was already dead beforeTimur was born. (Timur's birth: 1336 AD, Ilkhanate's disintegration: 1335) Also the Safavids weren't one of those states that formed after the collapse of the Ilkhanate, they were founded as a religious order during the Ilkhanate and they gradually gained more power locally, especially afterTimur's descendants had already lost their control over the western Iran and Mesopotamia and those regions (including Safavid homeland of Azerbaijan) had been controlled by Turkoman dynasties Kara Koyunlu and later Aq Qoyunlu.
I was looking for this comment. I remembered that the Ilkhanate collapsed due to the bloodline ending, but I didn't remember which states were the successors. Thanks!
@@oremfrien You're welcome. Though these three were only the official successors, the majority of the former Ilkhanate was controlled by other dynasties. Mostly small local rulers with Mozffarids and Sarbedar dynasties being the two large ones.
Great video, as a Georgian I *REALLY* appreciate such a thorough mention of Georgia and Armenia. You described how Georgia was thriving (under the PHENOMENAL presedent set by George V 'The Brilliant' who freed the country from Mongol rule), and I need to mention how this was *AFTER* the original Mongols annihilated an even more thriving version of our unified realm. Also worth mentioning, a more powerful Georgia _(that would indeed later unify with Armenia, that was a great call from you)_ would be able to defend *at least* Trebizond from the Ottomans (which started as a vassal state to King Tamar's Georgia after the 4th 'crusade'), leaving the final vestige of Byzantine culture and society firmly in the hands of Christians, most likely even uniting with the Georgian-Armenian union state, immediately or later down the line. I've written my own little alternative history story about this Georgian-Armenian-Trapezuntine union state, and I'm really glad to see somebody else mentioning such a prospect.
he literally killed more than 95% of the Persia's whole population and turned the green and food rich Iranian plateau into a giant barren desert which made farming impossible for decades despite the fact that there was no one to farm. Just trying to imagine an empire that fed almost half the entire planet's population (Achaemenid Empire) turned into an arid rocky mountainous region as it is right now. Iran still haven't recovered from his conquest and won't for a long time as the impact was so devastating that it changed the people forever. It makes me furious to see the west always trynna show that Iran was always a desert while they ignore so many facts here. If it was a desert why did the Aryans migrate to Iran from eastern europe anyway?
Sweden never conquered Poland-Lithuania during the Great Northern War, and had no ambition to annex it. The War of the Spanish Succession prevented Sweden from invading Saxony for five years, so the Swedish king used the time to try to elevate a Pole to the Polish throne, instead of the Saxon king August. Thats the reason the Swedish army was bogged down in Poland. On the other side, Sweden - Finland - Estonia and Poland - Lithuania had a common king for a brief period. now THAT would have been a history changing power bock. Imagine a world in wich Charles (IX) of Sweden never rebelled against king Sigismund, and Charles son Gustavus Adolphus instead had become Sigismunds main general.
Wait, what? Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth annexed by Sweden after Great Northern War? This episode is not very well researched. Commonwealth was officially neutral in that war, because Polish Nobility would not accept full engagement in that war. But king (elective) of Commonwealth during Great Northern War was Augustus II the Strong who was also Elector of Saxony and Saxony was engaged in Great Northern War, not Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. Swedes only fought Polish solders allied with Saxony and Augustus II the Strong and Swedes supported Warsaw Confederation of 1704 which wanted to get rid of king Augustus II. Warsaw Confederation won and Stanisław I Leszczyński was elected king of Commonwealth with blessing of Sweden. Furthermore Stanisław I Leszczyński was arguably the most capable elective king of Commonwealth and Commonwealth would be in far better place than after reign Augustus II the Strong and Augustus III the Fat. Besides Commonwealth after 1717 was already protectorate of Russia and even Commonwealth would became Sweden protectorate it would far more independent that being Russian protectorate. Besides it would be in Sweden interest for Commonwealth to be stronger than it was in 18th century, just Commonwealth would have to say goodbye to whole Livonia and Prussia. Probably then Commonwealth interests would be more focused on Black Sea but I think that Commonwealth would be left with at least Gdańsk Pomerania - if Sweden would have control over all Danish Straits, Holstein, Hamburg and Bremen then direct control of South Baltic ports wouldn't be so attractive.
Don't forget that without the 30 Years War, the odds of Sweden having too much interest in Central/Eastern Europe outside of the Baltics is pretty slim
I find it hard to imagine Sweden ever beating or controlling PLC that wasn't weakened by war with stronger nations. Historically the two times Sweden got Poland beat was when it was invaded on all fronts in 1650s and then in 1700s after a long, costly conflict against Ottomans, which drained its manpower and cash reserves, with political crisis to boot. Sweden was far too small and poor to control PLC, especially stronger PLC as in video .
phunkracy This video is talking about annexing PLC after Great Northern War (1700-1721) - PLC wasn't in the greatest shape then, but I just not see that Sweden could annex PLC with whom Sweden even wasn't at war officially. The best case scenario for Sweden then was to put on PLC throne someone pro-Sweden and PLC officially resigning from any claims to Livonia
@@Hadar1991 but in this scenario Poland was supposedly stronger and no cossack uprising. This stronger Poland could maintain the personal union of Poland Lithuania and Sweden that happened in 1600 without Sweden going independent. And without cossack uprisings there is nothing that could prevent poland from colonizing Ukraine like Russia did. Also Poland wouldn't lose entire veteran core of its army and officers like it did in Cossack uprising. And with stronger Poland there is no Prussia. This scenario of Sweden controlling Poland has hundreds of plot holes
@@phunkracy Very good points that I missed. So my opinion about this video is even worse that it was previously. Besides if PLC would be stronger then probably it would manage to annihilate Crimean Khanate on their own and then Cossacks probably would never came to be (at least on terrains of present day Ukraine and Ciscaucasia).
6:50 It's really weird to see the Netherlands as a food insecure country on this map, despite being the second largest net food exporter in the world after the US?
8:52 About seizing Moscow: Polish-Lithuanian armies took Moscow and kept it for several months. The Russian nobility actually agreed to make Vladimir IV, heir to the Commonwealth's crown, the new Tzar of Russia. The terms were negotiated by a general and sent back to Warsaw, capital of the PLC. The prince was ready to go and convert to Eastern-Orthodox Christianity, but his father Sigmund threw a hissy fit about the orthodox not being catholics. He himself was raised as a catholic by a protestant family in order to take the crown of PLC. The Russians had already prepared the coronation, started making coins with the future Tzar's likeness, but the King was stalling too long and Mongols came and took the city from Polish hands. The Russian nobility burned themselves alive not to get into Mongol hands. A while later a Russian revolution started in Petersburg, retook Moscow and started a new Russian Dynasty. After that, the balance of power began shifting from the PLC to the Russian Tzardom. King Sigmund III is one of the least popular kings of the PLC. Right after the one who ended it and the one who run away to rule France.
@@Ali-bu6lo maybe your right, I couldn't remember, I should have phrased it better as either 50%, or 10 Mil is true but I couldnt remember if it was which one / or both
As a romanian i feel obligated to defende one of our best overlords and call ot ugly. I mran you din conquer Pomerania and make the Baltic Sea and internal Swedish Sea or the swedish version of the roman "Mare Nostrum.
Well, I don't. But don't worry, it has nothing to do with Sweden. It's mostly because I'm Hungarian, and I take great pride in my ancestors contribution in keeping the Ottomans away from going further in Europe in the 15th-17th century. I would assume in this timeline the hungarian people would had had the choice between staying under Ottoman rule until the empire weakened and allowed them to free themselves, like the Balkans did in the 19th century, or migrate either north to Sweden controlled Poland or to west to Bohemian and German territories.
So you're telling me that the Ottomans would fail to take-on an overextended Georgia which owns flatlands of Upper-Mesopotamia (4:56), even though the Seljuks of Anatolia were able to defeat Georgia at its peak and golden age? That's also ignoring the possibility of an earlier Ottoman unification of Anatolia, considering Bayezid isn't captured by Timur and that's also ignoring the VERY high chance that Mehmet, if not Sulayman would have taken over that land if some of the other rulers failed. The Ottomans had the best artillery of their time, the best armies, a very large navy and even if they wouldn't be the ones to succeed, you've got bashibozuks (arguably better than janissaries) from Azerbaijan that would be happy to serve Persia to extend their influence. I am fine with the idea of a strong Georgia but one that extends too far beyond its original borders and somehow does not get crushed by two of the best empires at the time is really not plausible in my opinion. You're underestimating the power of the Ottomans at the time and if the Ottomans did indeed rise up faster, they would surely have the time to defeat Georgia. It's absurd to see a Georgia that almost owns Mosul when you have two of the largest empires of the time bordering them.
The idea is absurd solely by the fact of how small the georgian population was during its entire history. Mere 2-3 million georgians existed during that time, with 4 million today
@@MrKrusten Yeah, exactly. Armenians, Kurds, Azeris, etc.. would have been far more numerous in the land. Georgians would only be like a plurality. Not the first time in his videos that he's absurd. His overall content is fine and above average but I personally find that sometimes it's just absurd, unplausible or even feasible and this is a good example.
@@historitilian6236 I dont see georgia and armenia ever allying with kurds and azeris during that time. Much of the intense fighting that happened between georgia and other empires was the fact that these empires were almost always muslim, and georgia was christian. kurds and azeris are neither christian, nore are they caucasians. Absurd is subjective. The nature of his videos is theory, speculation and assumptions. Its impossible to predict any of the topics in his videos and all he can do is give his subjective opinion.
@@MrKrusten Though, his subjective opinion is not plausible or substantiated enough because there are many factors that would incline towards what contradicts it rather than what he personally thinks.
Golden age of Georgia was before the mongols invaded not before Temur leng. Seljuks did not defeat Georgia in our golden age it was opposite we defeated overwhelming numbers of Muslim coalition led by Seljuks in battle of Didgori. In our golden age we were protectors and rulers of all of caucasus stretching from Sochi to Baku and from Dagestan to west Trebizond.
🇺🇿:Im glad this isnt happend 🇹🇷🇦🇿🇬🇪🇹🇲(Tataria) :Agreed 🇹🇷:I dont want to be conqured İstanbul 50 year earlier and conqered vienna. 🇦🇿:İ dont want to be united all Turco-islamic countrys 🇬🇪:I dont want to be have golden age. 🇹🇲(tataria):I dont want to be giant like Russia, and spread islam europe to all way to east-asia. 🇹🇷🇦🇿🇬🇪🇹🇲(Tataria):.... 🇺🇿:Guys? 🇹🇲(Tataria):You doomed us all.
I hate when you say that Latin America hasn't industrialized, it has albeit later, currently by gdp ppp most of Latin America is like the US was in the 50-80s, they're middle class societies (not Venezuela, Bolivia, and central América) But it is an industrialized region nowadays, I don't understand why you say it hasn't, yeah it did in the 80-00 instead of the early 20th century but Spain did it in the 60-80 do its not that far off
i dont think he knows what industrialised means, given he marks former eastern bloc, china, cuba, dprk, and some others as "transitioniting" despite the fact they all became industrial nations in the 20th century. pretty much the only non industrial nations are the poorest regions of south and southeast asia and most of sub saharan africa. i think he misrepesents gdp statistics as whether or not a nation is industrialised, which is wrong. but hes generally well read and researched so he gets kudos from me
8:40 Just a heads up, up until the end of the 16th century, the largest country in Europe was actually the Grand Duchy of Lithuania. The addition of polish lands only occured in 1569 with the union of Lublin.
Ottomans would conquer Italy and Sicily. 4th Crusade would happen including British, Castile, French. You would see mini world war around 17th century. Would be interesting though.
A bit of a side step but I have my doubts about the food [in]security map as presented. F.I The netherlands is mentioned to import 50-75% of consumption. Did they somehow overlook that our food export surpasses that of our import?
Does anyone know of any books that describe frontier cultures throughout history? I’d love to read book that contains chapters describing everything from the boers, to the American frontier, the Cossacks, the British settlers in northern France. Great video as always
@@lilholm9446 It's just a possibilty and an interesting what if scenario. We can think that soviets had interests not in China but in all of Asia. But that would be a What if the international revolution didn't fail.
@@erikbenahmida2904 well they would probably give china to mao as the sino soviet split hadn't happened or they would put up puppet governments in china
What if Washington naval treaty was never singed? Would it result in anything more than giving us more cool battleships and battlecruisers? One way to do this scenario is to have German fleet actually follow orders given to them instead of just instantly mutiny at the end of WW1.
*0:38* Actually pretty impressed that Stalin snuck his way to top 3. I am very interested as to where you got this number from, pretty sure that even though destructive, his mass purges and costly _(yet in many ways neseccary)_ hyper-sped up industrialization campaigns claimed AT MOST 10 million lives. And hitler with ONLY 15 million? Aside from the greater war in the European theatre that caused the deaths of 16 million military personnel, there were the 25 million civillian deaths too, (Not just the 6 million Jews, but almost twice that number in terms of Polish and Soviet POWs and civilians) a lot of them from horrible executions and others as collateral/deliberate damage from war.
I need help of creating a scenario of ‘what if the Aztecs beat the Spaniards from being conquered’ and how this would effect Europe. I saw one of the previous videos stating that money coming from the new world, to Spain, then to the Hapsburgs, would have a lower financial stability, and could mean Protestantism grows a larger presences in Europe, where France becomes Protestant and Sweden becomes a world power by absorbing the northern German states into the Swedish Empire, creating a United German Power. You guys have anymore ideas?
my question, how are you able to interrelate so much information ? can you tell me your study plan and the courses that you took to reach this level of knowledge ?
Saif and karena would have never named their son Tamur 🤣🤣🤣🤣 Only Bollywood fans will understand it. Also Winston Churchill diverted food from India as reserved stockpile for WW2 this created The great bengal famine which killed millions of people .
@whatifalthist what do you think the chances are Japan could've incorporated elements of Christianity to form a hyper-syncretic society of Shinto-Buddhist-Christianity? Would this have caused far milder events than in your recent timeline, such as by being less amicable with Europeans whilst also disrupting the internal status quo far less? Do you foresee any chance a priest-monk class could rise to political supremacy above the daimyo/samurai (police state) system if the peasants don't entirely revolt yet the military castes are still nervous? In our timeline around 8th century Japan some Buddhist monks gained enormous political power just as Buddhism was entering Japan. It's suspected this may have been to make Buddhism less controversial and to expedite the monks rise to power, rather than the often suspected reason that Shinto was too strong to displace.
An example of an early prominent monk was Dokyo who held considerable politics power. For the militant religious groups there's the Sohei and other warrior monks, representing analogues to samurai and knights by virtue of being small populations with highly trained members. On the other hand there was the Ikku-shu movement which lead to peasant revolts. Even if Kyushu were to break away entirely as a Christian island, would it be plausible for slight Christianisation to occur in the rest of Japan save the most extreme areas like the Ikko-Ikki, such that Japan were far more culturally fragmented than in our timeline. If Western Honshu up to Nara were to incorporate elements of Christianity into their shinto-buddhist hybrid, representing modern Christianisation, perhaps it would've lead to reactions from those in the mountains and North of the Edo plains, who were harder to reach and lived more traditionally in our timeline (with slower acceptance of Buddhism). Two effects may have been a slower conquest of Northern Honshu and even the Ainu retaining control of Hokkaido, themselves modernising as a client state and playing the cultures of the splintered archipelago off each other. Perhaps by the time the US arrived to liberalise Japanese markets they could've struck a deal with the Ainu. In time they may have been able to take the Sakhalin and Kuril islands. The other difference is less national unity in Japan, which may lead to reduced Nationalism. Not sure if his mitigates the chance of a war with Russia if Japan's expansion is slower, but the disastrous assault on Taiwan may have been cancelled. A war with Russia could put the Ainu in a tough spot? Long term if they were independent they may experience Finlandization. The Meiji restoration might not have been so successful with Southern regions placing less importance on the emperor, however Kyushu largely sided with the Shogunate anyway. In our timeline Hokkaido saw a brief republic which held out for a little while. If there was a longer history of Ainu governance it is feasible. It seems a lot harder for the modernists to subdue both Kyushu + Western Honshu, and Hokkaido even with support of Central-Northern Honshu. If unity arises it may be as a confederation instead of as a unitary state. Not sure but perhaps heavily Chistianised areas with weaker daimyos may have seen greater racial diversity via both Asian and European migration, however foreigners are always the perfect scapegoat to keep a brutal regime in power.
>I am a historian bro trust me >Narrates the fetish story of the iron cage and concubine wife story Sultans did not take their wife with them to campaigns.
He goes to all the effort of killing so many people and gets forgotten…
Really that's just bad marketing on his part.
@@DogWalkerBill Maybe it's because of how recent he is? Not sure how well Hitler will be remembered 2,000 years from now...
@@scholaroftheworldalternatehist i mean, with how much we keep records in the modern age, i would say he may still be remembered and infamous.
@@DogWalkerBill I'd say he is sadly one of the most famous people who will ever live horrible people are famous and sadly good people most of the time are not
Stalin and Mao are also bigger mass murderers than Hitler but neither are hated as much as Hitler?
@@scholaroftheworldalternatehist you didn't see Stalin and Mao were 3th and 1th while Hitler was merely the 5th?
Our historians actually split the history of Georgia into before and after tamerlane. There are still plenty of hand carved caves in the hills and mountains of Eastern Georgia visible today dating to that time. Whole generations ended up living in exile. So much so that they didn't even remember their village's name when they eventually cane back. My village being a prime example of that. It's called Tsinandali, which cones from the georgian word Tsinandeli, which is an adjective turned noun, meaning the place from before. Plenty of other villages surrounding it have names with similar origin.
I know a kid called Tamerlan
Like Kublai Khan in China. His administration of China was so bad, that lead China into iliteracy and even a large simplification in languague.
Holy shit now that’s devastation.
This is a fascinating comment, thank you for this!
@ⵎⴻⵙ ⵓⵎⴰⵣⵉⵖ I wouldn't go that far. I mean the azeris are doing pretty good, well aside from being under a dictatorship.
Btw is that amazigh?
Timur aka the best Mount and Blade player of all time.
Obviously he was always choose troops morale rather than reputation
@@UnitedNationsSecretariat Repeatedly raid villagers to -100 opinion.
That’s crazy how Tamerlane’s invasion slowed the Ottoman Empire for around 50 years. I think he forgot to mention the interregnum and civil wars that took place in the Ottoman Empire as a result of Timur’s invasion. If he did not exist, it may have been possible for the Ottomans to land in mainland Italy as well, and defeat the Mamluks much earlier. This 50 year advantage could have been extremely beneficial, and there would’ve been a much more powerful Ottoman Empire
I disagree because you could make the argument that Tamerlane invasions destabilized the region and made the other Muslim powers much weaker making ottoman conquest of those countries much easier. There’s no guarantee that without Tamerlane that the ottomans would’ve been able to successfully defeat the other powers in the region
@@Manunido Actually most of those weaker Muslim powers pledged allegiance to Tamerlane so were unharmed. So Tamerlane really did slow down the Ottoman Empire a lot and destabilized the region for a long time.
Eren Arda Kitapçı before or after said countries were defeated
Man Unido the Mamluks were not significantly affected by Tamberlane’s existence. Tamberlane’s destabilization of Georgia would be how you mentioned, and he covered it in the video. The Mamluks, for example would most likely have been the same without Timur. To visualize just how much Timur affected the Ottoman Empire, it is necessary to determine the immediate effects of the Ottoman Sultan’s capture: (Civil war between the sons). A really bloody civil war which almost split the empire in two. Other nations took advantage of this weakness and started favoring one prince over the other. The very existence of the Ottoman Empire was under threat. The Ottomans defeated an entire Crusader force at Varna and Kosovo in the late 14th Century, don’t you think they would be much more powerful without these internal problems and a lesser threat in the East? To your comment on the more powerful Muslim neighbors, besides the Mamluks, the road to the Middle East was open. And they weren’t significantly affected by Tamberlane like the Ottomans. This conquest of the Mamluks would have been sooner if Tamberlane had not existed (The Ottoman Empire had more experience with gunpowder which is why they conquered the Middle East in our timeline, now imagine this 100 years earlier)
Yeah I don’t like how he characterises the ottomans as just lazy haram users in an orientalists stereotype, or arguing that the ottoman decline was predestined, when it wasn’t. As he said, the butterfly effect and more time to consolidate rules could have had a very different outcome.
It's crazy that one guy forgotten by history changed the world so much.
Yeah
It's always the little things that changed the world.
@@200lbAfricanPounderAllah has not taken any son, nor has there ever been with Him any deity. [If there had been], then each deity would have taken what it created, and some of them would have sought to overcome others. Exalted is Allah above what they describe [concerning Him].
@@matheenarifkhn3548Ты сейчас назвал мелочью сверхдержаву своего времени😂😂
Timur: I was a cheerful guy like you, then i got hit by an arrow
To the knee
''That arrow should've killed you then and there, bi*ch''
"Georgia under the rule of king George"
Perfect. Someone should make a wacky sitcom about that couple.
let me tell you that then name ,,george'' for the georgian kings was very common at that time-i mean,we had no less then 12 ,,george'' as the king till 1801.(im a native georgian so thats why i know my countrys history)
also,i dont get the line of ,,Someone should make a wacky sitcom about that couple''.could you please explain?i'll be very thankful if you do.
@@jemobolqvadze6905
Georgia is a female name in English speaking countries (and probably elsewhere). So, "Georgia under the rule of King George" sounds like King George is controlling Georgia's life. His wife or daughter or something
@@stooge_mobile oh. i see.thank you for explanation
So, are you saying South Ossetia or Abkhazia is Kramer?
@@stooge_mobile Well that's extremely goofy.
I want a video where he opens by saying, "Literally nothing changes." And ends it there.
Also, "And I'm guessing that changes things," about Shakespeare is a massive understatement.
English culture be like : Bruh
@@branislavhamborsky5535 Like half the english words were invented by Shakespeare so .. just a little difference
Still I think the guy who wrote this subversie Tamerlane play would have probably found different inspiration to do the same thing. Like Genghis Khan or something.
@Mr. Pokhrel That would be awesome, but I think you'll never be able to recover enough data. You would literally need every detail of every single person's life in all of history to make it completely accurate.
You forgot that he exterminated the nestorian church.
He mentioned it in 6:00
It still exists but doesn’t have the same global reach it used to sadly. Assyrian church of the east.
Thanks for mentioning us Assyrians, people always forget about us. Very good and informative video, you got yourself a new subscriber
Assyrians have a fearful reputation. Have you heard of their torture called the boats?
Wut? You're the iron age guys! That's like forgetting about the Egyptians.
@@lindainglis8506 that was actually the Persians.
@@kevinyonan2147 no. Persian state language was actually assyrian.
@@sarubet8725 but it was the Persian kings and administration who made the Boats torture method.
I have an interesting scenario: what if the Christian Assyrians formed a medieval kingdom in Northern Mesopotamia?
Don't read my username.
@Don't Read My Profile Picture
These are the type of people we have here i guess
@@hydrogenatom4624 don't speak my grandma's name.
The crusaders win, I think, idk
@@bigbo1764 Assyrians would've had to fight the Crusaders. Catholics/Latin church regarded the Assyrian Nestorian church as heretics.
The worst warlord was always the one with accident or poor childhood.
Had they lived perfectly hapoy and meaningful lives they would have build civilizations, not destroyed them
Or just become a lame and and never grow to dominance either way this would mean a minor death count to the world as a whole
@@El-s
Julius Caesar would just be a successful President or Prime Minister in today's world and let Augustus take his place. Less bloody, less military career
Better President that Trump or Reagan by miles
@@christiandauz3742 fair point
@Dodamni qaytarib beringlar
Which didn't last long after his death and he built it upon the graves of millions
It would have been better for a Time traveler to kill his parents and introduce 19th century Science and Industrialization in Persia
5:38 excuse me do you mean *G I O R G I O - A R M A N I*
Na he meant Supreme
Yess!!! Giorgio-Armani federal empire shall rule the galaxy!
I think the Asia Persia and even india would be much much more differentiated
Oooo
Timur’un Türklüğü Babürname’de bile geçer bu gerizekalı hala moğol diyor delirecem yaw güya Türk değilmiş de Türkleşmiş Moğolmuş🤣🤣😃
Moğollaşmış Türk olmasın o sakın Cengiz Han Barlas Tatarlarını moğollaştırdı
@@appleslover A True *Utopia*
İran da bizde olurdu ya,tabii çalarlardı iranlılar yine wikipedia da🤣🤣
The DORUK
Wikipedia eskiden Türk fatihi diyordu 2013 de :((( kimin neresine battı ya
As a Georgian, this video made me very happy :)
Same, as a swede
Same as A Turk ;).
Same, as an Armenian
@@deleteduser1877 I see this as an absolute win!
Greetings fellow citizen of the Georgio-Armani united federal empire!!
Every time one of these videos comes out, I want an EU4 mod to make this real.
just find a mod that changes the start date.
Botchamania JEEZUS I’m more talking the later development of the alternate history scenario, around the same time that eu4 takes place. Not all the way back then.
@@trevorpapineau7302 ah, you could easily do that in the beginning of a regular game with some console commands. idk much about modding tho so you'll have to ask someone else to do it that way.
me too
@@botchamaniajeezus also you can try the Extended timeline mod it's my favorite
9:55
On the map:
If Temerlane broke the Golden Horde, it should still be somewhere on this map. The Cossacks may create such a state, or several. Keeping central government over such a great area is a task.
I think that if the Moscowian Duchy didn't untite Russia, some other Duchy would. There was a lot of competition over ruling the Rus.
If you assume the PLC takes over Russia either earlier during unification or later during a war, it should spread to the North. It might fracture, just like with the Cossacks, it might not. It was already a bi-national state, it could become a tri-national one. It had been proposed in the past.
So this map really stems from the PLC not having a competitor in Asia, assuming the Golden Horde isn't one, and it's people breaking off to form different states. Which might happen, might not. It depends how much of a variable religious war against the Golden Horde would be. And how spoiled the nobility would b become.
I think the biggest take-away is that a continent-spanning state needs strong leadership, which the Polish nobility did not grant. They would need an Ivan to make a stronger monarchy, if they were to hold those lands.
Fascinating, that's all I have to say. However, I have a suggestion, I think you should list your sources for these videos in the description of your video to strengthen your credibility and the ability of people who agree with you to defend their opinions in debate.
I second this suggestion.
I third this suggestion
i fourth this suggestion
Kind of agree. I've seen fascinating images he uses, and would really like to view the source
I sixth this suggestion
*WHAT IF THE HELLENISTIC REGIMES WERE NEVER CONQUERED BY ROME?*
Cossacks = Libertarian Steppe Pirates!!! AWESOME!!!!!!!!🤟
Also genocidal monarchist raiders... Not so awesome.
what a party pooper 🚽😔
@@creatingkinok every party needs a pooper
that's why they invited you
party pooper
party pooper
You brought me down man. That wasn’t very cash money of you. PARTY POOPER🚽
I dunno why "libertarian" would be awesome.
This is one of your best videos yet! Love the effort you put into the map and the way you described how the divergence point affected each region, keep up the great work!
Fascinating! I had no idea Tamerlane was connected to the shift in playwrightmanship that inspired Shakespeares complex works.
Is that assertion really true?
Holy moly guacamole an alternate history on Iran/Central Asia that doesn't involve Achaemenids or Mongols.
He comes from a mongol family,stay calm american hardliner.
Iran/Central Asia was never impressive after timur! that's how bad the impact was. The dude literally wiped out 95% of the whole Iranian plateau's population. What do you expect?
@@salR2401Again the black legend ?
@@salR2401It impossible to wipe out millions of people , without any greater technological advances which Timurlan do not have .And he also rebuild the cities which were destroyed by Genghis khan and make the Samarkand the centre of Science and Art .Which called Timurud renaissance
10:37
Sweden managed to take over the PLC because the nobility basically refused to fight. They saw Sweds as liberators from a bad king or something. The longevity of Greater Sweden hinges on it's king's willingness to actually rule the lands instead of just robbing them. It could theoretically survive.
That would be interesting considering the Poles being catholic. Not sure about the Baltics though. Maybe it would later become a loose touch confederation or something later on?
We'd be speaking a different language without Shakespeare.
I think we'd likely still have works written by Shakespeare, just not morally ambiguous ones
I demand you make a video of what if Timur WAS a good administrator and actually conquered more
finally-i get to hear whatifalthist talking about my motherland from 4:26 to 5:54.thank you,whaifalthist.i really appreciate it.
I was just rewatching your last video. Pleasant suprise
I want a sequel to this one "The Napoleonic Wars without Tamerlane"
That's a really interstating scaniro I am thinking to start my very own alternative history channel so I might make a video on this topic.
What if Gustavus Adolphus wasn't killed at the Battle of Lutzen
YES
As a swede i want this
1632 by Eric Flint.
A Virginia mining town appears in the 30 years war and teams up with Gustavus Adolphus. Things get a little revolutionary...
Good fun books, and especially the later ones are very well researched collaborations
@@nootushyaquaternion434jabb2 I just read that book
@@gamearmy2195 ok
The India part is completely wrong. North India hadn’t “always been controlled by some nomadic tribe” history of north India didn’t start in 1200. The reason why 1200-1740s was dominated by nomadic tribes is because around 1100s, India and much of Asia went through civilizational collapse due to changing climates, which allowed Turkic nomads to dominate India, Iran, Egypt and Anatolia. Mongols rose for the same reason. But by 1500s, climate had become stable again, allowing for more stable govts. Delhi sultanate would have still collapsed, they were already collapsing. In 1500s, this afghan general sher shah suri took over, he came to India under Delhi sultanate, I don’t see why that still wouldn’t happen. He employed an Indian general as his 2nd in command, Hemu. After Sher shah Suris death, Hemu took over, and he realized that if India was to stop the cycle of Turkic nomads invading India, he would have to expel afghan and Turkic lords so foreign invaders don’t constantly have local support. If Hemu still comes to power, he would still expel the afghans and Turks, and just like Mughals would create a stable, expanding empire. Since Indians were way better at economics and encouraged trade, I don’t see why India wouldn’t be even more united and advanced.
Also, europeans weren’t able to conquer India not because of the Mughal empire, but because they just couldn’t afford to send enough people. They consistently lost to every Indian kingdom, even tiny ones. So I don’t see the timeline changing until 1700s. I don’t see India breaking down again either, since afghan and Turkic warlords were a huge reason why neither Mughals or Marathas could keep India unified, who in this timeline wouldn’t exist anymore
Really interesting to know. Wouldn’t this just mean that Britain would still conquer India in its entirety in late 18th/ early 19th century as Indian militaries are not really that good and European ones were and lead to Britain just conquering most of India (as they would prevent France from doing so because navy and they were the only force in eastern India? (Either that or India becomes a 2nd China depends on how stable this Indian empire is but one empire can’t hold on to power forever so I would say it would collapse into small states and Britain would seize it all so the Dutch wouldn’t survive and Britain would be more powerful, possibly with France or Germany forming an alliance with Russia (and the other allying Britain) but I think it would be France because Germany and Russia aren’t historic friends) either way Germany would win WW1 and whoever the sided with would also win. (Britain would be more powerful as India would be richer and as Britain would conquer India Britain would be more powerful by extension.
Kushans were also central Asian
@@bladefox-ik5iy Not really. The Maratha army matched the European armies in technology and tactics having hired French advisers. A plains based Hindu empire would have done the same or could have caught up in technology depending on how capable the rulers were. Similarly India's naval prowess was there though the Mughals didn't make any attempts to become a naval power, while IRL Marathas did so quite successfully.
bladefox2298 again, India feel because no central power when British arrived, it all depends on if major empires can hold on to power by European expansion. This would be easier to do since Turk and afghan lords don’t constantly support foreign nomads to invade India. Also India, unlike China and Japan, never closed itself off. India was always open to new influences, hence Indian military was always more advanced than China and Japan’s. While India’s outward approach had decline by 1200s, Indian kingdoms were always more outward looking than Turkic, so India should also have a stronger military at this point
Alamgir Kushaan ruled for less than 100 years and no more than north west
What if Tonga’s empire was bigger and lasted longer? I think it’s Tonga time
It's you again
Why are you in every comment section
WHYYYYY
@@Sovietube you just like simelar things
@@zorangesaft no avery is really everywhere
Ottomans : About to conquer Constantinople
Timur : Hol' Hol' up a second
Yeah Timur really gave most neighbour countries a kick in the nuts
Libertarian Russia? Well call me Alexie and hand me some vodka!
thanks for giving georgia attention. when there are videos about timur georgia is always overlooked. after timur invasions georgia was depopulated and weakened 50 year later georgia split in three kingdom making it easy target of ottmans and safavids. if not timur may georgia fought off ottomans and persians. georgia was recovering from mongol rule but it was still powerful before timur invasion.
You should incluye King Leopold as one of the monsters
I probably shouldn’t be joking about this but The three bad boys Mao Temüjin and Joseph
...walks into a bar...
One must remember that the polish lithuanian commowealth happened because of the livonian war. With a weaker russia, lithuania should have no problems defeating them without polish help. Therefore there would be no big Poland
Lithuania was still under union with polish kings and livonian war might very well happen against Danes or Swedes. The power inbalance was far too much in Polands favor and the idea of union of lublin didn't appear out of thin air, it was an effect of decades of consolidation
Amazing scenario - the one thing I have to say is, in a scenario where the Habsburgs are completely taken off the map, I think you failed to assess the effect that would have on the influence of france
It seems overwhelmingly likely to me that without the power of balance established by the austrians and spanish, the french would have likely been able to conquer belgium and the netherlands, having the knock -on effect of denying dutch presence in india to the profit of the french, or alternatively to the portuguese since the dutch wouldn't have had the chance to steal portuguese colonies such as ceylon
I love that the point of departure in the alternate history book, "years of rice and salt" takes place when Tamerlano decides to siege west, not east. He still dies though
Great documentary & a well informed video ! Nice job !
Also just as a side note: Tamerlan is a name used in Europe derived from his Persian title *Teimur-e-Lang* which quite literally translates into *Teimur the crippled* ! *This is because during a decisive battle, Iranians made him crippled for life* !! (It's not because he was lame from childhood or anything !!! Loool that's an English word Btw who even came up with that theory ??)
Also I'm surprised that you didn't focus on Iran itself as the mainland & seat of his empire ?!!
The more I read history the more I always come to hear the name *Iran* !!
Man, Iran is the giant of world history !!!!
*From the very beginning they had a great & influential civilization & culture & language* (Tamerlan spoke Persian btw, as did the mughals & even the ottomans for a long time at first)
*Iranians literally introduced to the world the concept of SUPER POWER during the 1st Persian empire !!!! What's interesting is that the Achaemenid empire was the first & last HUMANITARIAN worldwide super power !!!! They literally introduced human rights & abolished slavery* !!!
Iranians were in contact with Zoroaster (an Iranian himself), abraham, Jesus and Mohammed !!!
Fought almost every single major character in history !
& meanwhile managed to contribute sooo much to human evolution & development that I don't even know where to start listening them !!!
I have great respect & admiration for Iran & the beautiful people of Iran :)))
If there are any Iranians reading this , *Thank you for your existence* ;))
Temur Leng in Georgian, he raided Georgia at least 8 times
Safavids were Azeris ruling over Iran. As you said, it was based around the city of Tebriz, an Azeri-majority city to this day
Ah yes if tamurlane didn't exist i wouldn't be suffering in my 9th grade english class reading romeo and juliet for the 3rd time
or the Iranian plateau would be looking green-ish instead of being grey on google map. maybe less important tho lol.
3:03 Although it doesn't matter in the end, the details of the collapse of the Illkhanate was different: the Ilkhanate had already collapsed by 1335, decades before Timur's reign had started. although some remnants of it survived till 1350s (Chobanids) , 1370s (Jalairids) and 1380s (Kartids) with the last two being destroyed by Timur himself and Kartids having an actual claim to the Ilkhanate's throne. So claiming that Timur destroyed the Ilkhanate may be technically true, but he only destroyed the leftovers. The collapse of the Ilkhanate wouldn't have been delayed if Timur hadn't existed, because it was already dead beforeTimur was born. (Timur's birth: 1336 AD, Ilkhanate's disintegration: 1335)
Also the Safavids weren't one of those states that formed after the collapse of the Ilkhanate, they were founded as a religious order during the Ilkhanate and they gradually gained more power locally, especially afterTimur's descendants had already lost their control over the western Iran and Mesopotamia and those regions (including Safavid homeland of Azerbaijan) had been controlled by Turkoman dynasties Kara Koyunlu and later Aq Qoyunlu.
I was looking for this comment. I remembered that the Ilkhanate collapsed due to the bloodline ending, but I didn't remember which states were the successors. Thanks!
@@oremfrien You're welcome. Though these three were only the official successors, the majority of the former Ilkhanate was controlled by other dynasties. Mostly small local rulers with Mozffarids and Sarbedar dynasties being the two large ones.
Great video, as a Georgian I *REALLY* appreciate such a thorough mention of Georgia and Armenia. You described how Georgia was thriving (under the PHENOMENAL presedent set by George V 'The Brilliant' who freed the country from Mongol rule), and I need to mention how this was *AFTER* the original Mongols annihilated an even more thriving version of our unified realm. Also worth mentioning, a more powerful Georgia _(that would indeed later unify with Armenia, that was a great call from you)_ would be able to defend *at least* Trebizond from the Ottomans (which started as a vassal state to King Tamar's Georgia after the 4th 'crusade'), leaving the final vestige of Byzantine culture and society firmly in the hands of Christians, most likely even uniting with the Georgian-Armenian union state, immediately or later down the line. I've written my own little alternative history story about this Georgian-Armenian-Trapezuntine union state, and I'm really glad to see somebody else mentioning such a prospect.
2:13 Turco-Mongol(Tartar) tribe not turkified mongol tribe
So What it is?
@@kocayurekliadam2063 anlasana sırf türk dememek için böyle bir yalan ortaya atmış
Timur is a CK3 player's dream. Good to see someone know about him as he facinates me.
What if the Ottomans lost the crusade of varna
EU4 would be less fun, thats it.
Itamar Klartag playing a super Poland-Hungary-Lithuania Union might be pretty fun
Highly supportive of that one.
I second this I wonder if the armies of Wladyslaw and John hunyadi had the strength to make any difference.
@@njb1126 they did, I live in Varna and we studied the subject in school, it was very close to happening but they killed Vladislav
Fantastic stuff. Really enjoyed that butterfly effect as it spread across Asia...
he literally killed more than 95% of the Persia's whole population and turned the green and food rich Iranian plateau into a giant barren desert which made farming impossible for decades despite the fact that there was no one to farm. Just trying to imagine an empire that fed almost half the entire planet's population (Achaemenid Empire) turned into an arid rocky mountainous region as it is right now. Iran still haven't recovered from his conquest and won't for a long time as the impact was so devastating that it changed the people forever.
It makes me furious to see the west always trynna show that Iran was always a desert while they ignore so many facts here. If it was a desert why did the Aryans migrate to Iran from eastern europe anyway?
@Mustafa 576 iranian/canadian
"Butterflied" is my new fourth favourite non word
If we start using it often enough they'll have to make it a official word. Then this video would have butterflied 'butterflied' into existence.
@@Enzaio here in Italy the opposite has happened, they made official a stupid and nonsense word that no one uses because it is ridiculously specific.
Sweden never conquered Poland-Lithuania during the Great Northern War, and had no ambition to annex it. The War of the Spanish Succession prevented Sweden from invading Saxony for five years, so the Swedish king used the time to try to elevate a Pole to the Polish throne, instead of the Saxon king August. Thats the reason the Swedish army was bogged down in Poland. On the other side, Sweden - Finland - Estonia and Poland - Lithuania had a common king for a brief period. now THAT would have been a history changing power bock. Imagine a world in wich Charles (IX) of Sweden never rebelled against king Sigismund, and Charles son Gustavus Adolphus instead had become Sigismunds main general.
Wait, what? Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth annexed by Sweden after Great Northern War? This episode is not very well researched. Commonwealth was officially neutral in that war, because Polish Nobility would not accept full engagement in that war. But king (elective) of Commonwealth during Great Northern War was Augustus II the Strong who was also Elector of Saxony and Saxony was engaged in Great Northern War, not Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. Swedes only fought Polish solders allied with Saxony and Augustus II the Strong and Swedes supported Warsaw Confederation of 1704 which wanted to get rid of king Augustus II. Warsaw Confederation won and Stanisław I Leszczyński was elected king of Commonwealth with blessing of Sweden. Furthermore Stanisław I Leszczyński was arguably the most capable elective king of Commonwealth and Commonwealth would be in far better place than after reign Augustus II the Strong and Augustus III the Fat. Besides Commonwealth after 1717 was already protectorate of Russia and even Commonwealth would became Sweden protectorate it would far more independent that being Russian protectorate. Besides it would be in Sweden interest for Commonwealth to be stronger than it was in 18th century, just Commonwealth would have to say goodbye to whole Livonia and Prussia. Probably then Commonwealth interests would be more focused on Black Sea but I think that Commonwealth would be left with at least Gdańsk Pomerania - if Sweden would have control over all Danish Straits, Holstein, Hamburg and Bremen then direct control of South Baltic ports wouldn't be so attractive.
Don't forget that without the 30 Years War, the odds of Sweden having too much interest in Central/Eastern Europe outside of the Baltics is pretty slim
I find it hard to imagine Sweden ever beating or controlling PLC that wasn't weakened by war with stronger nations. Historically the two times Sweden got Poland beat was when it was invaded on all fronts in 1650s and then in 1700s after a long, costly conflict against Ottomans, which drained its manpower and cash reserves, with political crisis to boot. Sweden was far too small and poor to control PLC, especially stronger PLC as in video .
phunkracy This video is talking about annexing PLC after Great Northern War (1700-1721) - PLC wasn't in the greatest shape then, but I just not see that Sweden could annex PLC with whom Sweden even wasn't at war officially. The best case scenario for Sweden then was to put on PLC throne someone pro-Sweden and PLC officially resigning from any claims to Livonia
@@Hadar1991 but in this scenario Poland was supposedly stronger and no cossack uprising. This stronger Poland could maintain the personal union of Poland Lithuania and Sweden that happened in 1600 without Sweden going independent. And without cossack uprisings there is nothing that could prevent poland from colonizing Ukraine like Russia did. Also Poland wouldn't lose entire veteran core of its army and officers like it did in Cossack uprising. And with stronger Poland there is no Prussia. This scenario of Sweden controlling Poland has hundreds of plot holes
@@phunkracy Very good points that I missed. So my opinion about this video is even worse that it was previously. Besides if PLC would be stronger then probably it would manage to annihilate Crimean Khanate on their own and then Cossacks probably would never came to be (at least on terrains of present day Ukraine and Ciscaucasia).
6:50 It's really weird to see the Netherlands as a food insecure country on this map, despite being the second largest net food exporter in the world after the US?
Now we must invent time machine to fucking desintegrate this man
0:28 OMG it is so detailed
The Ottomans: The Catholics biggest rival but the Protestant's best friend.
10:44 OH YEAH BOY he is doing it again ♥
8:52
About seizing Moscow:
Polish-Lithuanian armies took Moscow and kept it for several months. The Russian nobility actually agreed to make Vladimir IV, heir to the Commonwealth's crown, the new Tzar of Russia. The terms were negotiated by a general and sent back to Warsaw, capital of the PLC.
The prince was ready to go and convert to Eastern-Orthodox Christianity, but his father Sigmund threw a hissy fit about the orthodox not being catholics. He himself was raised as a catholic by a protestant family in order to take the crown of PLC.
The Russians had already prepared the coronation, started making coins with the future Tzar's likeness, but the King was stalling too long and Mongols came and took the city from Polish hands. The Russian nobility burned themselves alive not to get into Mongol hands. A while later a Russian revolution started in Petersburg, retook Moscow and started a new Russian Dynasty.
After that, the balance of power began shifting from the PLC to the Russian Tzardom.
King Sigmund III is one of the least popular kings of the PLC. Right after the one who ended it and the one who run away to rule France.
I saw a nice big ottoman empire and i had to watch
Where is Leopold 2? His killcount ranges from 10 to 15 million.
8 million is the most plausible I've heard.
@@WhatifAltHist he did 50% of Congo (20 Mil) -therefore 10 Mil, can't remember source was some video
Whatifalthist
Here is my source:ua-cam.com/video/dTq6Hhkpw2s/v-deo.html
@@lorenzoeli2939 Congo had a population of 14 million in 1950, there's no way it had 20 million in late 19th century.
@@Ali-bu6lo maybe your right, I couldn't remember, I should have phrased it better as either 50%, or 10 Mil is true but I couldnt remember if it was which one / or both
As a Swede, the new map is beautiful
As a romanian i feel obligated to defende one of our best overlords and call ot ugly.
I mran you din conquer Pomerania and make the Baltic Sea and internal Swedish Sea or the swedish version of the roman "Mare Nostrum.
Well, I don't. But don't worry, it has nothing to do with Sweden.
It's mostly because I'm Hungarian, and I take great pride in my ancestors contribution in keeping the Ottomans away from going further in Europe in the 15th-17th century.
I would assume in this timeline the hungarian people would had had the choice between staying under Ottoman rule until the empire weakened and allowed them to free themselves, like the Balkans did in the 19th century, or migrate either north to Sweden controlled Poland or to west to Bohemian and German territories.
So you're telling me that the Ottomans would fail to take-on an overextended Georgia which owns flatlands of Upper-Mesopotamia (4:56), even though the Seljuks of Anatolia were able to defeat Georgia at its peak and golden age?
That's also ignoring the possibility of an earlier Ottoman unification of Anatolia, considering Bayezid isn't captured by Timur and that's also ignoring the VERY high chance that Mehmet, if not Sulayman would have taken over that land if some of the other rulers failed. The Ottomans had the best artillery of their time, the best armies, a very large navy and even if they wouldn't be the ones to succeed, you've got bashibozuks (arguably better than janissaries) from Azerbaijan that would be happy to serve Persia to extend their influence.
I am fine with the idea of a strong Georgia but one that extends too far beyond its original borders and somehow does not get crushed by two of the best empires at the time is really not plausible in my opinion. You're underestimating the power of the Ottomans at the time and if the Ottomans did indeed rise up faster, they would surely have the time to defeat Georgia. It's absurd to see a Georgia that almost owns Mosul when you have two of the largest empires of the time bordering them.
The idea is absurd solely by the fact of how small the georgian population was during its entire history. Mere 2-3 million georgians existed during that time, with 4 million today
@@MrKrusten Yeah, exactly. Armenians, Kurds, Azeris, etc.. would have been far more numerous in the land. Georgians would only be like a plurality.
Not the first time in his videos that he's absurd. His overall content is fine and above average but I personally find that sometimes it's just absurd, unplausible or even feasible and this is a good example.
@@historitilian6236 I dont see georgia and armenia ever allying with kurds and azeris during that time. Much of the intense fighting that happened between georgia and other empires was the fact that these empires were almost always muslim, and georgia was christian. kurds and azeris are neither christian, nore are they caucasians.
Absurd is subjective. The nature of his videos is theory, speculation and assumptions. Its impossible to predict any of the topics in his videos and all he can do is give his subjective opinion.
@@MrKrusten Though, his subjective opinion is not plausible or substantiated enough because there are many factors that would incline towards what contradicts it rather than what he personally thinks.
Golden age of Georgia was before the mongols invaded not before Temur leng. Seljuks did not defeat Georgia in our golden age it was opposite we defeated overwhelming numbers of Muslim coalition led by Seljuks in battle of Didgori. In our golden age we were protectors and rulers of all of caucasus stretching from Sochi to Baku and from Dagestan to west Trebizond.
🇺🇿:Im glad this isnt happend
🇹🇷🇦🇿🇬🇪🇹🇲(Tataria) :Agreed
🇹🇷:I dont want to be conqured İstanbul 50 year earlier and conqered vienna.
🇦🇿:İ dont want to be united all Turco-islamic countrys
🇬🇪:I dont want to be have golden age.
🇹🇲(tataria):I dont want to be giant like Russia, and spread islam europe to all way to east-asia.
🇹🇷🇦🇿🇬🇪🇹🇲(Tataria):....
🇺🇿:Guys?
🇹🇲(Tataria):You doomed us all.
16:35 The Sikhs only really started to militarize due to the Mughals being pretty rough on them, so yeah, they gotta go as well. (I think)
Any other nomadic dinasty could have conqered North India.
India gets split?
Finally India wont get represented as one entity in Civilization/Age of Empires
10:23 Perhaps they would´ve made them a puppet/vassal state instead if that was the case?
Yai! Two of my favorite channels are collaborating!
As a Georgian the Caucasus part is 100% on point
I hate when you say that Latin America hasn't industrialized, it has albeit later, currently by gdp ppp most of Latin America is like the US was in the 50-80s, they're middle class societies (not Venezuela, Bolivia, and central América)
But it is an industrialized region nowadays, I don't understand why you say it hasn't, yeah it did in the 80-00 instead of the early 20th century but Spain did it in the 60-80 do its not that far off
Just watch his video called "What if latin America was wealthy".
i dont think he knows what industrialised means, given he marks former eastern bloc, china, cuba, dprk, and some others as "transitioniting" despite the fact they all became industrial nations in the 20th century. pretty much the only non industrial nations are the poorest regions of south and southeast asia and most of sub saharan africa. i think he misrepesents gdp statistics as whether or not a nation is industrialised, which is wrong. but hes generally well read and researched so he gets kudos from me
8:40 Just a heads up, up until the end of the 16th century, the largest country in Europe was actually the Grand Duchy of Lithuania. The addition of polish lands only occured in 1569 with the union of Lublin.
Ottomans would conquer Italy and Sicily. 4th Crusade would happen including British, Castile, French. You would see mini world war around 17th century. Would be interesting though.
In South Asia he is called taimur Lang. Lang means someone who limps
What if the Dutch and the Belgians would have remained/become united during the 80 years war?
A bit of a side step but I have my doubts about the food [in]security map as presented. F.I The netherlands is mentioned to import 50-75% of consumption. Did they somehow overlook that our food export surpasses that of our import?
Does anyone know of any books that describe frontier cultures throughout history? I’d love to read book that contains chapters describing everything from the boers, to the American frontier, the Cossacks, the British settlers in northern France. Great video as always
Never knew about this guy. thnx
What if the soviets conquered china before mao?
They actually had Xinjiang under their control, while china was fighting against the Japanese.
Wasnt in the soviets injerest
@@lilholm9446 It's just a possibilty and an interesting what if scenario. We can think that soviets had interests not in China but in all of Asia. But that would be a What if the international revolution didn't fail.
@@erikbenahmida2904 well they would probably give china to mao as the sino soviet split hadn't happened or they would put up puppet governments in china
I didn't even know Spain and the Ottomans had that much history, much less a rivalry
Lepanto.
This would make such a cool EU4/Vic2 map 🤩🤩🤩
The greatest channel
What if the Muggle Empire never existed? Would Harry Potter rule the world?
Ottoman Empire still at the height of it's power in the 19th Century... i like the look of that.
I love how Morocco is just chilling there saying NOPE to the Ottoman's potential access to Atlantic waters lol
What if Washington naval treaty was never singed? Would it result in anything more than giving us more cool battleships and battlecruisers? One way to do this scenario is to have German fleet actually follow orders given to them instead of just instantly mutiny at the end of WW1.
What if Sigimund Vasa was able to maintain Polish-Swedish commonwealth?
*0:38* Actually pretty impressed that Stalin snuck his way to top 3. I am very interested as to where you got this number from, pretty sure that even though destructive, his mass purges and costly _(yet in many ways neseccary)_ hyper-sped up industrialization campaigns claimed AT MOST 10 million lives. And hitler with ONLY 15 million? Aside from the greater war in the European theatre that caused the deaths of 16 million military personnel, there were the 25 million civillian deaths too, (Not just the 6 million Jews, but almost twice that number in terms of Polish and Soviet POWs and civilians) a lot of them from horrible executions and others as collateral/deliberate damage from war.
I need help of creating a scenario of ‘what if the Aztecs beat the Spaniards from being conquered’ and how this would effect Europe. I saw one of the previous videos stating that money coming from the new world, to Spain, then to the Hapsburgs, would have a lower financial stability, and could mean Protestantism grows a larger presences in Europe, where France becomes Protestant and Sweden becomes a world power by absorbing the northern German states into the Swedish Empire, creating a United German Power.
You guys have anymore ideas?
>some dude dies in childhood in Asia
>Shakespeare: fuck literature
LMAO I can't stop laughing
Can you make a video focused just on what if Russia during it's eastern expansion was a free settler society?
my question,
how are you able to interrelate so much information ?
can you tell me your study plan and the courses that you took to reach this level of knowledge ?
I think he has a FAQ and AMA video somewhere.
Saif and karena would have never named their son Tamur 🤣🤣🤣🤣
Only Bollywood fans will understand it.
Also Winston Churchill diverted food from India as reserved stockpile for WW2 this created The great bengal famine which killed millions of people .
Wow, this has got to be one your most interesting videos ever. Bravo!
@whatifalthist what do you think the chances are Japan could've incorporated elements of Christianity to form a hyper-syncretic society of Shinto-Buddhist-Christianity?
Would this have caused far milder events than in your recent timeline, such as by being less amicable with Europeans whilst also disrupting the internal status quo far less?
Do you foresee any chance a priest-monk class could rise to political supremacy above the daimyo/samurai (police state) system if the peasants don't entirely revolt yet the military castes are still nervous?
In our timeline around 8th century Japan some Buddhist monks gained enormous political power just as Buddhism was entering Japan. It's suspected this may have been to make Buddhism less controversial and to expedite the monks rise to power, rather than the often suspected reason that Shinto was too strong to displace.
An example of an early prominent monk was Dokyo who held considerable politics power. For the militant religious groups there's the Sohei and other warrior monks, representing analogues to samurai and knights by virtue of being small populations with highly trained members.
On the other hand there was the Ikku-shu movement which lead to peasant revolts.
Even if Kyushu were to break away entirely as a Christian island, would it be plausible for slight Christianisation to occur in the rest of Japan save the most extreme areas like the Ikko-Ikki, such that Japan were far more culturally fragmented than in our timeline. If Western Honshu up to Nara were to incorporate elements of Christianity into their shinto-buddhist hybrid, representing modern Christianisation, perhaps it would've lead to reactions from those in the mountains and North of the Edo plains, who were harder to reach and lived more traditionally in our timeline (with slower acceptance of Buddhism).
Two effects may have been a slower conquest of Northern Honshu and even the Ainu retaining control of Hokkaido, themselves modernising as a client state and playing the cultures of the splintered archipelago off each other. Perhaps by the time the US arrived to liberalise Japanese markets they could've struck a deal with the Ainu. In time they may have been able to take the Sakhalin and Kuril islands.
The other difference is less national unity in Japan, which may lead to reduced Nationalism. Not sure if his mitigates the chance of a war with Russia if Japan's expansion is slower, but the disastrous assault on Taiwan may have been cancelled. A war with Russia could put the Ainu in a tough spot?
Long term if they were independent they may experience Finlandization.
The Meiji restoration might not have been so successful with Southern regions placing less importance on the emperor, however Kyushu largely sided with the Shogunate anyway. In our timeline Hokkaido saw a brief republic which held out for a little while. If there was a longer history of Ainu governance it is feasible. It seems a lot harder for the modernists to subdue both Kyushu + Western Honshu, and Hokkaido even with support of Central-Northern Honshu. If unity arises it may be as a confederation instead of as a unitary state.
Not sure but perhaps heavily Chistianised areas with weaker daimyos may have seen greater racial diversity via both Asian and European migration, however foreigners are always the perfect scapegoat to keep a brutal regime in power.
But this religion exist, is the Kyusei Kyo or Church Universal Messianic.
Without Tamerlane we would have had the greatest mass murder of any timeline; Gregg Smith.
@Whatifalthist. Here’s an idea, what if Rome never adopted Greek culture.
What about the War of Spanish Succession? What happens now that Austria is gone?
France become a great power fighting Prussia
Love the ottoman part
>I am a historian bro trust me
>Narrates the fetish story of the iron cage and concubine wife story
Sultans did not take their wife with them to campaigns.