@@an_38kitkashyap India me but Cricket ziyaada chalta hai par. Mere hisaabse Hero Indian Super League uta popular nahi hai hamare desh me jitna IPL hai.
They can't lol. Like how maji japan had European expert training their army. Maratha empire, Mysore, Sikhs, etc also used french to modernised their army.
@@Abhishek-sr2pu all those states used the French to train their army because France had been mostly kicked out of India by then and wasn't a threat anymore, France on their part wanted to help them because a strong Indian ally would be a welcome distraction to the British if France and Britain go to war. If France had become the dominant European power in India instead of the British they wouldn't be interested in helping those states be strong. They had already turned Hyderabad into a puppet state of them before the war. Also even with French advisors all those countries still lost to the British, and the British army was weaker than the French. So if anything the French would've had an easier time defeating those Indian states. France didn't just have a bigger army than the British but also better cavalry and artillery, and the French were the first to start training sepoys to supplement their troops in India (the British copied that later on).
@Vice Vision lol we Europeans build infrastructure with the goal of transporting our own soldiers more quickly or to make resource extraction easier, passenger transport always came later. And I'd argue the French were better at building railways in their colonies than the British lol. The British usually relied on private companies to do the work for them instead of state-owned ones. If France wanted a railway built it got built, if Britain couldn't find a contractor for a difficult job they just shelved it and didn't look back. In Indochina France build an extensive networks cutting through jungles and crossing mountains, even building a line to Kunming in China, and they had 3 points where their railways connected with those of Thailand. In it's British neighbour Myanmar the British build some railways in the central lowlands and then called it a day. Plans to mimic the French and build a railway into China were scrapped because they couldn't find anyone willing to do it for them. Neither did they ever build a railway to Siam. The only places Britain build a lot of railways were white settler colonies like South Africa. India was the sole exception, and they only started building a large railway networks there around 1890.
@Aman Lool india was better under british rule and improved under it idiot, british built india, stop learning fake history and start learning real history
@Rick K There I better scenarios i have suggested around here, none of which ever make it... So distraught. Like what if Bela III/Alexios actually became the Eastern Roman emperor. Edit: The possible reason that one and many others weren't selected was because I have always maintained strict comment screenshot rights for every one of my suggestions.
Some British Guy: All right Frenchie *GAME ON* Breaking News: The United Kingdom has delcared war on the United States the cause of the war being colonialism
That reminded me about some monk who wrote over some seemingly random text in a book for his religious texts but it turned out that book was about basic physics and stuff hundreds of years before it was used
@@SGT676 Certainly if DaVinci had perfected the airplane, a small scientific revolution would have occurred where gravity is discovered like 200 years before Newton.
@@MJayzStudio archimedes wrote a book called the method about calculus and physics a full 1500 years before newton and another guy I cant remember made their discoveries also I dont know the name of the monk but yeah some basic info today would have been known centuries earlier if that guy didnt write over that seemingly useless book
I think this would be hella unlikely because even if gliders become a thing, powered flight needs a reliable, lightweight engine, and I doubt combustion or electricity could be invented. Steam could have been invented in the 1400s/1500s but it wouldn't be an option (it's too heavy and fuel-uneffective).
I have an idea for your next video: What if Charlemagne (Emperor of the franks) married irene (Empress of Byzantium)? Which would unite both kingdoms. It almost happened in our time-line, Charlemagne proposed a marriage to Irene and she was really considering to accept, but she lost her throne because she was a women. I would love to see this alternative scenario
@@sauron7839 The Parthians would have conquered the decayed Seleucid empire, thus recreating the Achaemenids. I don't know what would happen to the Ptolemies. Anatolia would have remained Greek. There would be no Jewish diaspora.
6 Ideas: What if Korea became Christian in the 16th-17th Centuries/Was the first Asian Nation to Industrialize instead of Japan? What if India became Communist? What if the Xinhai Rebellion failed? What if the Islamic Conquests of Egypt/Persia failed? What if the Ming defeated the Qing in the Ming-Qing War? What if the Sikhs Conquered the entire Indian Subcontinent/Won the Sikh-Mughal Wars/Won the Sino-Sikh War?
+Richard Ahr: Technically? Korea would be 2nd to enter the industrial age. China would be the 1st to industrialized. China under the Song Dynasty was already gearing up for the industrial age. But? It was due too the Nomdic invasion of China in our real timeline. That prevented China from entering the industrial age in the 1100s. If the Nomads? Never invaded China! China would have entered the industrial age. The industrial age in China before the nomdic invasion was imminent.
India had good relations with the Soviets but not to the point of India wanting to join the Warsaw Pact. Pakistan was good with the Chinese and bought weapons from them and the USA. That wouldn't be too far fetched for India to have gone communist sometime in the early 1970s.
In this scenario China has a better chance of earlier modernization with the French as partners. The reason the Chinese rejected the English was because A: they saw them as an island country and thus not a serious continental power, and B: the English were a nation of merchants who wanted to open up Chinese ports. The Qing Empire was run by the Manchu minority that were living precariously between Han majority uprisings. Opening ports to trade would make the Han majority there rich and allies with the English, making another rebellion inevitable. However the French were an aristocratic society and they would do business top-down by cultivating relationship with the Manchu aristocracy. Our timeline King of Siam had an excellent relationship with Louis XIV.
Got to love the myth that France had any other choice but to Surrender in WW2 with the German brake out and the British getting ready to running home across the channel.
@UNIVERSAL SPACE EXPEDITIONER Yeah and then the British gave Germany what they deserved, a nice defeat in the battle of Britain and a joint invasion of 90,000 British and 90,000 American troops on dday landings to show the terrorist nazi people who is the boss
@UNIVERSAL SPACE EXPEDITIONER Ahah no its not. Britain alone had 2.9 million soldiers during the war. Stop watching to many American movies and recognise the defeat at the battle of Britain and the navy that even hitler was scared of.
@UNIVERSAL SPACE EXPEDITIONER" they got what they deserved" So you mean that wanting to stop N.Germany wasn't a good thing? You really think Germany did nothing bad? How dare you be that dumb? bro...
UNIVERSAL SPACE EXPEDITIONER France and Britain did kill people in the past for religion or race purpose, but never at as organized or as violent as did nazi germany. You also said that it was france fault because they declared war on germany. It is not. The declaration of war was deserved by germany and was actually very late compared to everything germany did; Germany remilitarized Rhineland, sent volunteers to Spain, stopped to pay the treaty of versailles, annexed Austria, annexed Sudetenland, later bohemia and Moravia and made or Slovakia a puppet state. Now you want them to let Danzig be german? If they followed your the allies would have just give alsace lorraine and the whole lebensraum to hitler. If Chamberlain had balls the allies would have declared war during the Sudetenland crisis and germany would have lost (they were weaker at the time)
@petulant some timelines are better than others tho. Of course there won't be some peaceful utopia but some changes are for the better and others are for the worse
That also mean the Great Qing may still in power to today's age! If not, another rebellion led by the Heaven and the Earth Society is going to happen and the Ming dynasty will be restored to power.
1. Because we are addicts who always need a new fix of alternate History 2. Maybe with a victory in Indochina and better political integration for Algeria into France. Actually, the brutal methods of the french army in Algeria were pretty efficient and the victory was mostly political. It's like the saying "a guerilla army wins by not loosing and a standing army looses by not winning". I don't know if the consequences on the world stage would be that big, internally for France it would be big and maybe it would further the life of imperialism a bit, but today France already keeps somewhat of a colonial empire in Africa so. What would be interesting is treating a scenario that I saw on a blog called "What if France carried on fighting in 1940?" in which Reynaud's mistress and Petain who were for surrendering die, and France abandons its mainland, moving it's army, navy and some of its industry to Algeria, essentially promising equal status to the indigenous inhabitants of the colony. The scenario theorizes an earlier landing and an end of the war in 1944, but it could also lead to a different relationship between France and Algeria if they keep their promises, and if they just spend 4 years agressively building industry in Algeria.
@Tonton-Wa Oh you misunderstood me, I was not defending colonization, it's just that France is still maintaining control over many of its former colonies today and it did have the military advantage, the technics used in Alger became the basis for counter insurrection operations. I just said it was might be possible that they halt the decolonization process but that would not lead to a peaceful situation. The age of decolonization was like many movement not an overwhelming force of history but a movement that succeeded in the right places at the right time, and it's not alternate history if we don't explore what could have happened
@Tonton-Wa In fact discriminatory laws were discust in the post-war France, I don't agree with when you say that a longer colonisation will increase the number of this law. Especially one's about religion, where is no way. French secularism is very difficulte to explain to not french but to simplify it's garantee that everyone as a full liberty of beying religous or not (and every religion are egual) and to practice is faith. Racism was way more commun in Algeria, than in France, and it's an important reason of the war but indigenous law could have been ban by the metropole, which will result to separatiste being seen as communist terrorist. As european where the majority on some part of the coast without indigenous law and more integration, the decolonisation will have probably take more time and some part of Algeria, may be french departement nowadays.
Whatifalthist at 8:07 you mention how Canada almost had civil wars and how Saskatchewan and Alberta nearly joined the U.S. as a Canadian I need an althist video on that!
I guess we'd all be using French now with French being the most important language in the world in this alternate timeline. Amazing how one battle (Plassey) could have rewritten history as we know it. Thank you for the video. 🙂
@@clay119 No, seriously. Look up the reason for the Battle of Plassey. It was started because British monopoly on the Indian trade to Europe was revoked. The French at best hoped to gain a trade outpost in Bengal. As that war was lost due to the sudden betrayal of the commander in chief of Bengal to the British, post war Bengal was in a shock. Plus the betrayer assumed the Throne of Bengal and had zero legitimacy, forcing him to rely heavily on his British Mercenaries, effectively making him a British puppet
It’s pretty unfair to group up the Napoleonic Wars and Revolutionary Wars as they were a set of wars and not the whole war itself WAR of the First Coalition - French Victory WAR of the Second Coalition - French Victory WAR of the Third Coalition - French Victory WAR of the Fouth Coalition - French Victory WAR of the Fifth Coalition - French Victory War of the Sixth and Seventh Coalition - French Defeats
@@evvec1490I wouldn't count it off so easily, in his time he was a major force and the repercussions may have had a greater impact upon the timeline. Barbarossa was an incredibly charismatic leader, extremely organized with exceptional accomplishments before the crusade all over Europe. He was one of the medieval periods most powerful leaders heading the largest christian army to the middle east before his death, which never really participated in our history. He took part in foreign wars and politics, among others as the Danish Civil war and had negotiated for the Byzantines as well so he was active outside of his own borders during his rule. I would be interested in knowing what he would have done among Richard the Lionheart and the problems with Saladin. His reign had he lived would have been far reaching in many various parts of the Medieval world after the Crusades.
What if the Knights Templar was never destroyed? What if the Alamo never fell? What if the Raid on Harper's Ferry succeeded? What if Bleeding Kansas never happened?
Surely you mean “What if the French HAD colonized India”? The title like this sounds like a suggestion, and honestly I don’t think Macron has the balls to try :D
What if Tecumseh’s confederacy survived? What if Athens won the Peloponnesian War? Feel free to start a conversation which I would be happy to respond to
question alternate Peloponnesian War scenario, could they have made a united greece or would they just fall to to the Macedonians like what actually happened.
Aidan O'Rourke The effect the war had on Greece was the fracture of the alliances at the time like the Peloponnesian league bringing them back to just city states. One scenario I can see with an Athens victory is a rivalry with Macedon as it starts gaining prevalence. I’m not sure if it would be a tight split or be one sided as I’m not sure about technology and military for each faction or if there are others involved.
Athens would continue to expand her empire but the moment she was threatened by an outside force (cough, Philip, cough) the colonies would start to revolt just like in the peloponnesian war. (This is just my humble opinion though)
5 ideas: What if the Spanish Armada won? What if the US joined the central powers? What if war broke out over the Fashoda incident? What if war broke out over the China Soviet border conflict in 1969? What if the US never purchased Alaska in 1867?
If the Spanish Armada had won, it would very likely not change much, since the third Spanish Armada did win and land in Brittain but nothing happened. They just realized they were too few to occupy the entire Island, packed up, and left.
@@FaithfulOfBrigantia The third Spanish Armada (1597) had 12,000 elite Spanish soldiers. A storm dispersed the fleet, a few kilometers from the coast, when the English fleet was lost in the Atlantic, very far from that scenario. Only 500 Spanish soldiers could reach the ground. But the idea was to invade London. If the 12,000 soldiers had landed, they went to London to dethrone the Protestant king, with the help of half the English population.
The Quebecois didn't help anglo-canadian cuisine because relations between the two were never great. Both communities kept to its own (and arguably still do), but french-canadian cuisine is actually pretty good and complex
@@kakalimukherjee3297 Nope. French accent is actually quite good. Indian accent is probably the worst in the world. Especially bengali and south Indian accent.
@@mayankdewli1010 Have you any evidence to back up your claim that the French accent is good? They cannot pronounce the R sound, they cannot pronounce H, neither can they pronounce hard Ts and Ds. In the Indian accent, on the on the hand, all these features are not only pronounced, but exaggerated (that's what makes the accent Indian in the first place). And that's why the Indian accent is far more understandable than the French accent.
The hundreds of local micro-states or rajadoms would be far much more influencial or effective - The subcontinent definetly wouldn't be as much as unified as Today
Why ? France is a very centralized state, and has been that way since the XVIe century. The idea of a political structure within the state isn't something that exist in the french idea of a nation, unlike in the UK, where you have several subnational organisations (Scotland, Northern Irland...)
France was already busy annexing territory and had effectively turned one of the biggest states in India (Hyderabad) into a puppet under French control before the British beat them in the 7 Years War. If they had won the Carnatic Wars France would have done the exact same thing as Britain, if anything it's likely the princely states would have even less autonomy than they did under the British.
Without the french invasion of Portugal and the flee of the royal family to Brazil, the Brazil would stay also a colony a bit longer and Portugal more stable.
Two problems with the video is: 1. Japan industrialized because US forcing Japan to open up caused intense xenophobia and soon rebellion from Satsuma that brought down the Shougun and put Emperor on power. It ended up having the effect of speeding up industrialisation rather then reversing it It is doubtful whether Japan would have industrialized without China getting smashed up, but it is a possibility 2. Pakistan had best and most open economy in South Asia before Soviet and US wars in Afghanistan (see Ayub Khan) Otherqise brilliant as always
@@Persian-Immortal you have 3 biggest and greatest empires with you just be proud of it simple bro 1.Persian empire(5.5 million sq km) 2.Sassanian empir(3.5 million sqkm) 3.Parthian empire(2.8 million sq km) If I was Parsi bro I would keep my heads high walk with honor only bro What we have 1. Gupta empire(3.5 Million sqkm) 2. Karkota empire(3 million sq km) 3.Maratha empire(2.6 million sqkm) 4. Chola empire (2 million sq km) We have another empire but we don't have proves and evidence to claim it actually the Europeans and Arabs made him Mythical or fictional emperor. Many people want to erase him from the world We call him Vikramaditya Parmar who ruled ancient India from 57 BC to 15 AD. Vikramaditya(5 million sqkm) He ruled directly 1. North India 2. Pakistan 3. Nepal 4. Bhutan 5. Bangladesh He ruled indirectly 1. Deccan plateau region 2. Burma land 3. North east india actually. With Territories,Vassal and tributary states it will be 5 million sq km of land at least is my feeling actually
What? No Napoleon goes to India to forge his own empire scenario? I am shocked! I am actually serious, most alternate history where the french Revolution does not happen, completely sidetracks Napoleon. Even with no revolution, he is still a genius military leader (a general like Hannibal, not a state leader but enough to turn the tide of a war) with a lot of ambition. Anywho, great work, keep on, I love your videos.
I'm so sick and tired of everyone calling France cowards and losers, it's just so unfair, France is a military genius, and it was just unlucky that everyone remembers that one time they surrendered in WW2, and think it's how the French fight all their wars. if Britain wasn't an island, they would be overrun just as easily by Germany in WW2 as France, well maybe not, because France would have invaded and annexed them long before that.
That's true. The island of Great Britain was a great advantage for them, against the invasion attempts of the hegemonic empires of Europe, which invaded all the capitals of Western Europe: Spain under Philip II, France under Napoleon, Prussia under Bismarck and Germany. Japan also had that same kind of advantage, and so it was not invaded by the Mongols, nor did it have European colonialism, nor communism, nor great upheavals, but rather a certain stability. The island is the key factor. Apart from the fact that the Royal Navy won some key battles on some specific occasions, because they could allocate almost the entire military budget to the fleet, having a small army, due to the island factor.
I have an idea for a video series. What if the moon was habitable? I say series because it would change technology, mythology and history. However, you cover wide topics good too, so one video would be short and swift, but a series more detailed. No realistic POD needed.
I love alternate histories involving space exploration. Habitable Venus and Mars would also be pretty fun in that context. Although I don't think we could really get there much earlier than in our timeline. Maybe as early as 1940s if we really tried. In any case, I imagine the late Cold War would take the turn similar to the 1600s and 1700s competition for the American colonies, with superpowers and private investors competing for all the good stuff these celestial bodies may offer. By now, we could be living through the first large emigration wave to the other worlds.
@@ivanthegreat2.070 Interesting, but how would we get there without reliable avionics, radios, control systems, sensors, and so forth? Are you proposing that the technology would accelerate faster in that timeline? I am not sure if the vernesque approach would make that much sense all things considered.
@@TapOnX you are spot on. Based on how fast it took Germany to make a tank during world war one, divided by two since we have a cold war esque situation, I assume we would have Gauss guns on 1864, launch objects into space 10 years late, and then get railguns in 1879. Add 10 years, and we arrive on the moon via the Swiss in 1889.
Ivan the Great 2.0 Guns can’t get you to orbit because of how orbital dynamics work. Not to mention literally everything would have to be manned. Rockets are needed for any railgun system. Plus, there were easier targets in the 19th century. East Asia was never really partitioned, after all. Also, a habitable moon would be so large it would make the Earth and Moon tidally locked, which would turn both landmass areas to merely equatorial bands, like on Titan. Habitable Mars and Venus only work if they’re practically deserts (or in the case of Mars, with far more greenhouse gases) due to being at the edges of the habitable zone (water is a greenhouse gas and increases albedo if ice. In either case, with Mars, you would still need a mask system to breathe properly with all the greenhouse gases (even low increases in CO2 levels can cause the brain to not properly function inspectapedia.com/hazmat/Carbon_Dioxide_Hazards.php ). And seasons on Mars would be extreme due to its orbit.
So a few things, with an Austrian Netherlands still existing due to no Congress of Vienna and no Napoleon I think Austria could’ve used the coal in this region to industrialize and possibly unite Germany, since the Rhineland not going to Prussia would also hinder its potential industrial capabilities. To further the idea of Austrian unification I think that with Religion still playing a larger part in politics France would likely back Austria instead of the Napoleon III I’m staying neutral but what can you give me bullshit
Good point about Belgium & coal. I don't see what would cause the HRE to fall without Napoleon, nor what would trigger the identity nationalism of the 19th century. You're right too on religion. French society was bogged down throughout the 19th century, even after Napoleon, not triggering state secularism until near the end. How would the Catholic missionary push impact India? Would this create or prevent a similar 1857 Indian Mutiny?
France won the War of the Austrian Succession as well as the Franco-Dutch War. Moreover, you could've separated the Napoleonic Wars into all the individual coalition wars, of which France would've won all except for the sixth and seventh ones. Also, it's debatable whether France truly lost WWII because Free France did prevail in the end.
I'm honestly way too annoyed at you putting "Vikings" as a top 5 *militaries* for 1000 AD choose a specific group of vikings (which doesn't make that much sense as individually none could compare with most of the actual militaries) Or don't call it militaries. the vikings weren't a united military force, I mean if we put them together we might as well pool "mafia" and have it as one of the strongest militaries in modern times
Maybe he was referring to a great heathen/summer army type situation, that was a bit earlier then 1000 AD. I know it wasn't really a unified group but it's the closest thing when it comes to vikings
@@ethanwmonster9075 They weren't really even that good at fighting on water, that wasn't their type of warfare. They were great seafarers, but their forces would land and fight as infantry basically.
Considering how groups were very autonomous in their decision making and governance. It would be difficult to name one specific group or state, as a result one can't choose a specific group.
You forgot how the outcome of Waterloo was decided by the fact that it rained the night before and Napoleon had to wait 2 or three hours before attacking so that the ground could harden to use his artillery and cavalry. If you haven't done one yet please do one where Napoleon wins at Waterloo or wins his 1812 invasion of Russia. Also as a fellow Canadian I'm pissed off about how you said that the Quebecois hasen't helped Anglo Canadian cuisine. Have you forgotten about Poutine?
slight correctiion about Plassey, a major portion of the Bengali army under Mir Jafar had jsut abandoned the battle before,due to him being bribed by being offered the position of Nawab,but e rebelled again against his puppet status and got put down(again).SO the main consideration should be the treachery not happening
Dear God thus comment section is horrible. 90% of comments are people screaming rudely into the void about their scenario, nobody is actually talking about the video itself. For example, this is a really great video, but I wish you had touched upon what India would look like today borders-wise. Would the subcontinent be unified, sinilar to what it is now, or fractured even more?
Indian curry is litterally one of the best thing in the universe. I like french cuisine but i fell like on a day-to-day basis we mostly eat random stuff, not all those famous dishes.
If the French had controlled the Suez, I think the Rhone valley would become insanely industrialized, with Marseilles being a main entrepot of Europe: Bringing in spices, silks, etc from India, and pumping out textiles and heavy industry products that are developed further upriver around Dijon and Alsace today where there are massive iron and coal deposits. I wonder too if it would have become a large shipyard as well since the forests of central France and Germany would be fairly accessible? Southern France would probably have become very similar to the English midlands (i.e., Leeds, Machester, Liverpool) in the 19th century.
We could be been known as " Le Indian".B t w you analysis of Battle of Plassey (1757) was slightly incorrect. French were bound to loose. It's because the main army of the Nawab, under his prime minister Mir Zafar was inactive as he had stuck a secret deal with Robert Clive whereby upon British victory, Mir Zafar will become the Nawab. The French did perform well in battle but would have lost anyway. Also they were fewer than the British. So impact wise, they were nascent. Still a nice. Video. I'mma Bengali myself.
As an person Indian descent, I would want a timeline by an excellent alternate historian like you in which India was never colonised by any foreign power. EDIT: you should study about the third battle of panipat which was the reason India got colonised. It was also the bloodiest day in Indian history and the 18th century
Panipat is overrated dude.... Marathas were fine Afghanis were so shattered after the battle that they went back.... No land was lost.... The real problem was the fact that marathas became a confedracy instead of an empire
If France had colonized India we could have seen and witness the emergence of the world’s greatest fusion cuisine such as baguette roti sandwich made with ghee French butter and French Charcuterie, Biryani with French paneer and ragout curry.
The problem is, the French did attempt to invade Konbaung dynasty (Third Burmese Empire) but were defeated and some were captured (Portuguese met the same faith earlier). French then established ties with French and France had been helping the Burmese ever since by supplying weapons to fight the British, Konbaung dynasty did send a request to French to help them in the Anglo-Burmese war but French was busy with their own issues at that time and the letter came too late
There's several mistakes here, particularly about the Industrial Revolution. It's one thing to speak about how it initially started, it's another to speak about how other countries emulated it under different conditions, particularly in the case of Belgium, Germany, Denmark and Japan. There is a lot of copying and taking advantage of conditions created by other colonial powers there, so we can't consider these in a vacuum. Also, speaking of that, as you speculated there would be no French Revolution (at least not in the same way as real life), this raises a lot of questions about French history as it would proceed. The French Empire in Africa was built and maintained under a largely Republican era in French history. Can we really say that the way this would have been implemented and maintained in a French royalist empire would be the same? The end result would likely be similar as you mention in the difference between France and Britain, but perhaps this should have been addressed. Also, I think you're giving Britain too much credit for the limited number of democracies that came out of their former colonies (and that's not even asking how democratic many of them really are, or how democratic Britain really was or is...). Britain did not foster democracy in its colonies (unless they were white) and any representation was just a means of control. The "democratic" tendencies were likely far more the result of the international climate after WW2, including the contribution to international politics made by the Soviet Union and the USA. And also domestic issues and political thought inspired by that coming out of Europe. It is possible, even likely that the key events that led to this line of events with democracy, nation-states and Neocolonialism would have occurred one way or another, whowever it is unexplored in the video. It would be radically different world by 1945 without a French Revolution (or at least the one that came to pass) and with a diminished British Empire focused on North America. How would this impact later revolutions? Would something similar occur? Would Russia experience anything similar to their Revolution? Would the United States have expanded or survived if the Caribbean and Canada were so important to the British Empire as it would stand in this timeline? These might sound like knitpicks next to the scale of this scenario, but they're worth mentioning. Otherwise a great exploration of a topic which easily and quickly tremors outward, more than many probably realise.
8:00 German states have a *shit ton* of autonomy dude. People have this impression that Germany is quasi-unitary the way Russia or Mexico are; it isn't. Revenue as far as I can tell is centralized, but lawmaking and regulatory authority are more decentralized than even in the US.
I half-expected Whatifalthist's Anglo sensibilities to be so revolted by the idea that he would describe the timeline as an "Axis WW2 victory"-tier disaster.
One thing I am a little surprised you did not mention here was French Catholic missionary zeal. With l'Ancien Régime still around, would you not think that there would be lots of French Jesuits and nuns heading off to India to "convert the heathen"? One of the differences I notice between Protestant and Catholic nations' colonies is that the Protestants did not care much about converting the colonised peoples (British in NA, Brits in India, Africa, or the Dutch in Indonesia) whereas the Catholics invested a lot into spreading their religion (French in Québec, Spanish in the New World, Portuguese in Timor-Leste). Anyway, I discovered your channel not long ago, and I think it's great, keep up the good work and recover swiftly from your present illness!
At 0:16 in the 1250 section, the wrong English banner is displayed. The St. George's cross would only come into use in the 16th century and even then it would be the official flag of England until the 17th century. Also, (and take this with a grain of salt) Japan would probably still industrialize at around the same time period as in OTL. From what I've read, there were multiple western powers competing for influence over the Japanese Archipelago. I know that the Americans (of course) and the British were attempting to meddle in Japanese affairs and I believe that the French also were involved (again, take this with a grain of salt). Either way, I still could see France Matthew-Perrying their way into Japan for similar reasons to the U.S and U.K.
If french controlled India , India might have earned freedom much earlier because the French were already weak during WW2 because of fighting with the Nazis and indian freedom movement was growing really strong during ww2
Yea somewhat true actually... The Side effect would be that every Indian instead of speaking English would be speaking French and U.K would have been an irrelevant country and no Hong Kong I guess....
As a UA-camr starting out (Skeleton Keys Production SKP") and as a massive supporter of this channel (one of my main inspirations tbh), I'm about to release a video on "What if the British Never Ruled India?" which has many parallels with this timeline, but which adds in some things that I feel that @whatifalthist missed here, such as the effect on Britain itself (culturally, sense of self, linguistics etc.), as well as focusing more on how big of an impact India had on the British Empire (population, economy, military etc). I'll also compare Pondicherry with Mumbai (Bombay), Madras (Chennai) and Kolkata (Calcutta) to show how French rule led to a mediocre state compared to British rule leading to booming megacities that are financial and trading hubs (think also Singapore and Hong Kong). Also the bit in this video about Australia and Indochina I feel were a bit pulled out of the air, however the Middle East bit is spot on. Also, would there even be a WWI that Britain would be in, as a major cause was Kaiser Wilhelm's personal jealousy over British imperial might that he wanted to emulate through a Naval arms race (plus Hitler was jealous of India too and wanted to emulate the British Raj in Eastern Europe.) Sorry if this feels like a long rant, like I said I love the channel but there's always multiple angles with each Alternative History scenarios and this channel is still BY FAR heads and tails above the rest! Big up my man @whatifalthist
that chart of your top 5 militaries of the last 1000 years made me want to tear my eyes out... at parts, it looks like you're talking about pound-for-pound military strength, which is really the only way to justify putting Prussia as #1 in 1750, even though France's military was far, far larger and more powerful overall, the "viking military", which wasn't a thing unless you're talking about, like, the great heathen army, and Normans as #2 and #4 in 1000 AD respectively, despite the Seljuks and HRE both being far, far larger and more powerful overall. Hell, the West Francian military that the Normans tenatively served under was far more powerful, as were the Cordoban, Bulgarian, Polish, and arguably English militaries. Are you confusing the Normans with West Francia? And the Teutonic Knights at #5 in 1250 is a huge stretch. Also, you used the Timurid flag for the Uzbeks, and regardless of which one you meant, in the year 1500, neither could be considered a "top 5" military- even with Ming far past their peak, and Muscovy far before theirs, they both easily had more powerful militaries. Also, Castille wasn't a country in 1500- they had been part of Spain for a decent while before then. And it's easy to look at Prussia being able to hold it's own on the continent against France, Austria, and Russia during the Seven Year's War and conclude they were the most powerful military in the world, but you have to consider that they basically completely bankrupted their economy and lost an enormous chunk of their population, and that, even despite that, it was only really because of the two Miracles of the House of Brandenburg, and having a very effective king, that they were able to get out of it alive. Overall, France's military was far larger and more powerful at the time. The only military assessment I would agree with is the one for 2000 AD.
Here's an idea for a video:what if Decembrisr revolt never happened? It was an event that had shaped the russian history,policy and culture for the next century,would be nice if you covered it.
Hey man love your videos and have been watching for a really long time If I may make one suggestion, maybe add some background music so the video comes across less dry Still love your stuff!
I don’t know if you’ve already looked at any of these scenarios, but.... What if the Bronze Age Collapse never happened? What if Antony & Cleopatra had won? What if Alfred had never united the Anglo-Saxon kingdoms into what would become England? What if the Romans had abandoned England in the era of Boudiccea? What if France (or the Dutch) had colonised Australia first? I resent your crack at our cuisine!
What if instead of the democratic nations allying with the ussr the Soviet German non aggression pact is maintained and they both go to war with allies in turn basically what if the ussr joined the axis?
I appreciate the extra info on the cards, but I wish you would say everything out loud, even if means splicing an audio track, and even if it makes the video long. I like listening while I work or do other things.
I thought the same thing. Without the Napoleonic wars to distract them and constantly trying to keep their hands on India, the British would be able to bring much more of their military might to bear in a reconquest of the colonies. They might start by conquering them in ones and twos, splintering them away from the main country Maybe re-infiltrating former Tories former loyalist strongholds like New York to soften them up first.
The Revolution would still happen due the the french nobility taking most of the stuff, the people would revolt to not stay as the peasants and try to make the society more equal in france. And so they would probably not need to sell Louisiana to the US to build a strong navy, they would already have india as their bank, so france would've been able to easily build up large navies to try to conquer UK, and may even habe successful (very low chances), but if that happened then basically france would control about 50-70% of the world in all sectors, it would have 30-40% of the world's land, so ye.
It was good in 1940. It was just that some of French generals were bribed by the Germans beforehand. The French also had better or at least comparible tanks. The French high command even had a planned invasion of Germany sometime around 1939 ish but the government had the "peace in our time" mentality so they never went through with it.
@@BobbyB1928 omg, don't be so technical lol. I am well aware the French military on paper was superior to the Germans. There main problems are that they were surprised by the Germans blitzing through the ardenelles and their tactics were outdated for WWII. It is fairly common knowledge that the French were the military master of the continent in the interwar era
@Dejan/Дејан Kojić/Којић it would've been a stomp. Germany wouldn't have had the numbers, planes, or tanks. The British would have still sent the 300,000 ish force like they actually did in our timeline. A drive towards Berlin would have been too costly so the French/British would have swallowed up some border territory along with the rhineland and held untill Germany agreed to an ceasefire
I have some disagreements with your list of French war victories and defeats. First you didn't list many important wars that ended up as French victories : Devolution War (1667-1668), Franco-Spanish War (1635-1659), Franco-Chinese Wars and conquest of Indochina, Spanish Expedition (1823). Most of more minor conflicts also ended up as French victories. Second you list some wars as defeats while they are French victories : Franco-Dutch War, 2nd World War (lost the battle of France but was on the victor's side) Third you list some wars as defeats while they're inconclusive (some stuff/nothing won some stuff/nothing lost) : War of Spanish Succession, Nine Years War, War of Austrian Succession For a complete list : fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liste_des_guerres_de_la_France Otherwise, intesresting video ! In this timeline, what would become French Louisiana ?
-In the Franco-Spanish War of 1635-1659 and the War of Devolution, Spain was simultaneously at war with France, England, the Netherlands, Portugal, the Turkish Empire, revolts in Italy and Protestant Germany, and other conflicts on five continents: Mapuches from Chile, Apaches, Morocco, Filipino Moors, Berber pirates, with 70% of America's wealth, mortgaged on the Westernization of America, while England, France and Holland took home the wealth of their empires. France won in France (Franche-Comté and some Belgian towns). Spain beat France in Catalonia, Italy and the rest of Belgium. Spain signed peace like France in 1815. But all the Spanish kings died in their beds. -In the War of Succession, France had 3/4 of Spain as an ally, with all the gold and silver of America, and the decision of the last king of Spain to inherit the throne to Felipe V, grandson of a queen Spanish. France was decisive, but with that help. -In the war of 1823, invasion of the 100,000 sons of San Luis, Spain was divided into a civil war, at the same time as the war in all of Hispanic America. France acted on the mandate of the Congress of Vienna. -Spain inherited French Louisiana, after 7 years wars, because we had a Western world already built, and the British could not conquer it. Napoleon and the French Army I think it is the most brilliant military period in France, with an unstoppable army and the best military strategist in history: Napoleon.
I think you may be overestimating the effects of the Opium Wars on Japan's industrialization. The black ships of Perry and various incidents at Shimonoseki and Kagoshima gave Japan plenty of incentive to modernize.
Fate of Japan: I disagree about Japan falling to Russia. The western Russian Empire is a vast wilderness that was only united by the Trans- Siberian railroad, (built 1891-1916). This rail line was too thin to support the major overseas invention of the Japanese islands.
@@deutschelehrer69 bro india isn't germany. Marathas were far more civilized than any european can ever concieve, more importantly, they weree pretty secular.
practically, India would have maintained its wealth and global status, under a competent empire. Perhaps, a slower global industrialisation would've taken place, because the europeans wouldn't have had the resources to start one, and there wouldn't be such incentive in India because the society was already very wealthy. It would've happened, perhaps maybe in USA or somewhere Europe or perhaps somewhere in India, but I am guessing that once it would've ignited it would've spread like wildfire all over the world and not just Europe. Also, China would not have been humiliated, and industrialisation would've spread in China as well. I am guessing the rate of industrialisation would again, be slower, but more widespread and uniform. Probably more scientific advancement though, because scienitifc ideas from Europe were spreading in India irl, until the British destroyed academia in India. But with Marathas, Indian scientists would have accelerated scientific progress. I'm not sure if China would've opened up seeing others industrialise or not... Japan would've probably been slower in its advancement, for similar lack of incentive reason. And no way in hell world wars would happen. Tbh, history and world events are so random and unpredictable that there's no point in speculating. Noone thought some poor islanders would end up taking over half the world, for example. So, this is just speculative entertainment and nothing more.
Calcutta would never develop if French took over India because Calcutta grew out to become a city only after the British conquered Bengal in the Battle of Plassey . Infact , if British lost at the battle of plassey , the brits would would most probably have been kicked out of fort william by the nawab or the british would not gain much influence henceforth which would result in calcutta developing into a small town just like other colonial outposts became ( just like Chandannagore , bandel , srirampur are today ) Maybe chandannagar would have developed into a city but it may not exert much influence mainly because the centre of french colonial administration in india was pondicherry/puduchery
I think the biggest impact would be that the Indians would never have played cricket.
We be footballin'
wandiwash real name is vanthavasi.
@@rudrakshpainuly1294 yes. FOOTBALL IS LIFE ✊
@@an_38kitkashyap India me but Cricket ziyaada chalta hai par. Mere hisaabse Hero Indian Super League uta popular nahi hai hamare desh me jitna IPL hai.
No, you would be playing Pétanque lol
If France had colonised India, I would probably be writing this comment in French.
They can't lol. Like how maji japan had European expert training their army. Maratha empire, Mysore, Sikhs, etc also used french to modernised their army.
@@Abhishek-sr2pu all those states used the French to train their army because France had been mostly kicked out of India by then and wasn't a threat anymore, France on their part wanted to help them because a strong Indian ally would be a welcome distraction to the British if France and Britain go to war. If France had become the dominant European power in India instead of the British they wouldn't be interested in helping those states be strong. They had already turned Hyderabad into a puppet state of them before the war.
Also even with French advisors all those countries still lost to the British, and the British army was weaker than the French. So if anything the French would've had an easier time defeating those Indian states. France didn't just have a bigger army than the British but also better cavalry and artillery, and the French were the first to start training sepoys to supplement their troops in India (the British copied that later on).
@Aman Lool stop spamming the same reply everywhere this has literally nothing to do with what I said.
@Vice Vision lol we Europeans build infrastructure with the goal of transporting our own soldiers more quickly or to make resource extraction easier, passenger transport always came later.
And I'd argue the French were better at building railways in their colonies than the British lol. The British usually relied on private companies to do the work for them instead of state-owned ones. If France wanted a railway built it got built, if Britain couldn't find a contractor for a difficult job they just shelved it and didn't look back.
In Indochina France build an extensive networks cutting through jungles and crossing mountains, even building a line to Kunming in China, and they had 3 points where their railways connected with those of Thailand. In it's British neighbour Myanmar the British build some railways in the central lowlands and then called it a day. Plans to mimic the French and build a railway into China were scrapped because they couldn't find anyone willing to do it for them. Neither did they ever build a railway to Siam. The only places Britain build a lot of railways were white settler colonies like South Africa. India was the sole exception, and they only started building a large railway networks there around 1890.
@Aman Lool india was better under british rule and improved under it idiot, british built india, stop learning fake history and start learning real history
I read it as "What if the French Colonized India 10 minutes ago?" which is an interesting question.
What would borders, culture, demographics, wars, and the world today be like. That is the question of this alternate history.
😂😂😂
@Rick K There I better scenarios i have suggested around here, none of which ever make it... So distraught. Like what if Bela III/Alexios actually became the Eastern Roman emperor. Edit: The possible reason that one and many others weren't selected was because I have always maintained strict comment screenshot rights for every one of my suggestions.
Some British Guy: All right Frenchie *GAME ON*
Breaking News: The United Kingdom has delcared war on the United States the cause of the war being colonialism
Hail Emmanuel Macron, Emperor of India!
What if Leonardo DaVinci perfected the flying machine, or airplane, in the 1490's.
That reminded me about some monk who wrote over some seemingly random text in a book for his religious texts but it turned out that book was about basic physics and stuff hundreds of years before it was used
@@SGT676 Certainly if DaVinci had perfected the airplane, a small scientific revolution would have occurred where gravity is discovered like 200 years before Newton.
Karim Clarke who are you referring to?
@@MJayzStudio archimedes wrote a book called the method about calculus and physics a full 1500 years before newton and another guy I cant remember made their discoveries also I dont know the name of the monk but yeah some basic info today would have been known centuries earlier if that guy didnt write over that seemingly useless book
I think this would be hella unlikely because even if gliders become a thing, powered flight needs a reliable, lightweight engine, and I doubt combustion or electricity could be invented. Steam could have been invented in the 1400s/1500s but it wouldn't be an option (it's too heavy and fuel-uneffective).
I have an idea for your next video: What if Charlemagne (Emperor of the franks) married irene (Empress of Byzantium)? Which would unite both kingdoms. It almost happened in our time-line, Charlemagne proposed a marriage to Irene and she was really considering to accept, but she lost her throne because she was a women. I would love to see this alternative scenario
I would love to see an alternate history of this
Yeap, this. I need this video
I want this video.
Please do this one!
Dude hell yeah
*What if the Hellenistic regimes of the Middle East survived?*
Fucking yes please!!
@@dwindebabk They kind of did, until the rise of Islam. The Eastern half of the Roman Empire was basically just a continuation of Greek civilization.
@@WhatifAltHist BUT WHAT IF ROME DID NOT CONQUER THEM?
@@sauron7839 The Parthians would have conquered the decayed Seleucid empire, thus recreating the Achaemenids. I don't know what would happen to the Ptolemies. Anatolia would have remained Greek. There would be no Jewish diaspora.
Btw, Mark, how do you know when my videos are released within a 5 minute period, even when it's super late Eastern Standard time.
6 Ideas:
What if Korea became Christian in the 16th-17th Centuries/Was the first Asian Nation to Industrialize instead of Japan?
What if India became Communist?
What if the Xinhai Rebellion failed?
What if the Islamic Conquests of Egypt/Persia failed?
What if the Ming defeated the Qing in the Ming-Qing War?
What if the Sikhs Conquered the entire Indian Subcontinent/Won the Sikh-Mughal Wars/Won the Sino-Sikh War?
These are good. The Ming-Qing should be massive.
+Richard Ahr:
Technically?
Korea would be 2nd to enter the industrial age. China would be the 1st to industrialized. China under the Song Dynasty was already gearing up for the industrial age. But? It was due too the Nomdic invasion of China in our real timeline. That prevented China from entering the industrial age in the 1100s.
If the Nomads? Never invaded China! China would have entered the industrial age. The industrial age in China before the nomdic invasion was imminent.
The India one would be interesting
@@Clee-os6pv impossible. Industrialization occured in England for a reason.
India had good relations with the Soviets but not to the point of India wanting to join the Warsaw Pact. Pakistan was good with the Chinese and bought weapons from them and the USA. That wouldn't be too far fetched for India to have gone communist sometime in the early 1970s.
the last time I was this early france was west francia
@petulant The funny thing is he'll still be earlier than you in going to hell.
@petulant Who hurt you?
The last time I was this early, Epstein and Trump were fucking the same boys!
In this scenario China has a better chance of earlier modernization with the French as partners. The reason the Chinese rejected the English was because A: they saw them as an island country and thus not a serious continental power, and B: the English were a nation of merchants who wanted to open up Chinese ports. The Qing Empire was run by the Manchu minority that were living precariously between Han majority uprisings. Opening ports to trade would make the Han majority there rich and allies with the English, making another rebellion inevitable. However the French were an aristocratic society and they would do business top-down by cultivating relationship with the Manchu aristocracy. Our timeline King of Siam had an excellent relationship with Louis XIV.
So the rich Manchu aristocracy just straight up admitted to wanting to keep the poor poor?
@accountthatillusetocomment3041 it's pretty common. Poor people are easy to dominate.
Country that won the most battles: *France*
People making memes about the French surrender during WWII: "I'll ignore that"
Got to love the myth that France had any other choice but to Surrender in WW2 with the German brake out and the British getting ready to running home across the channel.
@UNIVERSAL SPACE EXPEDITIONER Yeah and then the British gave Germany what they deserved, a nice defeat in the battle of Britain and a joint invasion of 90,000 British and 90,000 American troops on dday landings to show the terrorist nazi people who is the boss
@UNIVERSAL SPACE EXPEDITIONER Ahah no its not. Britain alone had 2.9 million soldiers during the war. Stop watching to many American movies and recognise the defeat at the battle of Britain and the navy that even hitler was scared of.
@UNIVERSAL SPACE EXPEDITIONER" they got what they deserved" So you mean that wanting to stop N.Germany wasn't a good thing? You really think Germany did nothing bad? How dare you be that dumb? bro...
UNIVERSAL SPACE EXPEDITIONER France and Britain did kill people in the past for religion or race purpose, but never at as organized or as violent as did nazi germany. You also said that it was france fault because they declared war on germany. It is not. The declaration of war was deserved by germany and was actually very late compared to everything germany did; Germany remilitarized Rhineland, sent volunteers to Spain, stopped to pay the treaty of versailles, annexed Austria, annexed Sudetenland, later bohemia and Moravia and made or Slovakia a puppet state. Now you want them to let Danzig be german? If they followed your the allies would have just give alsace lorraine and the whole lebensraum to hitler.
If Chamberlain had balls the allies would have declared war during the Sudetenland crisis and germany would have lost (they were weaker at the time)
i like this timeline: no French revolution, no napoleonic wars, no collapse of spain, less aggressive Germany and Japan, no opium wars etc.
Agreed, digging the idea of like Bavarian led Germany. More beer less blitzkrieg
@petulant some timelines are better than others tho. Of course there won't be some peaceful utopia but some changes are for the better and others are for the worse
That also mean the Great Qing may still in power to today's age! If not, another rebellion led by the Heaven and the Earth Society is going to happen and the Ming dynasty will be restored to power.
@Pseudo Sozi how so?
@Pseudo Sozi yeah but it was extremely bloody and chaotic. Democracy would've eventually come. Just look at every other country in Europe
1. What if your comment sections weren't filled with What Ifs and what if i wasn't fueling it too?
2. What if France managed to keep Algeria?
1. Then we could actually discuss the ideas in the video
2. No
1. Because we are addicts who always need a new fix of alternate History
2. Maybe with a victory in Indochina and better political integration for Algeria into France. Actually, the brutal methods of the french army in Algeria were pretty efficient and the victory was mostly political. It's like the saying "a guerilla army wins by not loosing and a standing army looses by not winning". I don't know if the consequences on the world stage would be that big, internally for France it would be big and maybe it would further the life of imperialism a bit, but today France already keeps somewhat of a colonial empire in Africa so. What would be interesting is treating a scenario that I saw on a blog called "What if France carried on fighting in 1940?" in which Reynaud's mistress and Petain who were for surrendering die, and France abandons its mainland, moving it's army, navy and some of its industry to Algeria, essentially promising equal status to the indigenous inhabitants of the colony. The scenario theorizes an earlier landing and an end of the war in 1944, but it could also lead to a different relationship between France and Algeria if they keep their promises, and if they just spend 4 years agressively building industry in Algeria.
@Tonton-Wa Oh you misunderstood me, I was not defending colonization, it's just that France is still maintaining control over many of its former colonies today and it did have the military advantage, the technics used in Alger became the basis for counter insurrection operations. I just said it was might be possible that they halt the decolonization process but that would not lead to a peaceful situation. The age of decolonization was like many movement not an overwhelming force of history but a movement that succeeded in the right places at the right time, and it's not alternate history if we don't explore what could have happened
@Tonton-Wa In fact discriminatory laws were discust in the post-war France, I don't agree with when you say that a longer colonisation will increase the number of this law. Especially one's about religion, where is no way. French secularism is very difficulte to explain to not french but to simplify it's garantee that everyone as a full liberty of beying religous or not (and every religion are egual) and to practice is faith.
Racism was way more commun in Algeria, than in France, and it's an important reason of the war but indigenous law could have been ban by the metropole, which will result to separatiste being seen as communist terrorist.
As european where the majority on some part of the coast without indigenous law and more integration, the decolonisation will have probably take more time and some part of Algeria, may be french departement nowadays.
Oh, the irony
Whatifalthist at 8:07 you mention how Canada almost had civil wars and how Saskatchewan and Alberta nearly joined the U.S. as a Canadian I need an althist video on that!
Have Pierre Trudeau stay as Prime Minister and have the Quebec referendum win.
Then the US will have *lil* hat on top of their head. Lol
I guess we'd all be using French now with French being the most important language in the world in this alternate timeline. Amazing how one battle (Plassey) could have rewritten history as we know it. Thank you for the video. 🙂
Even as indian I know French . Bonjour
@@mrcool2107 Ça va
Indé garçon
8:08 That would be a interesting alternate history, what if Canada had a civil war? (Either in 1995 or 1967)
Hell yeah
Biggest SORRY battle would have been definitely happened.
So Britain and France swap places kinda? Huh
They wouldn't though. The Bengali Nawab, Siraj ud Daulah was in a much better place to negotiate with the French than the British.
@@mvalthegamer2450 doubt
@@clay119 No, seriously. Look up the reason for the Battle of Plassey. It was started because British monopoly on the Indian trade to Europe was revoked. The French at best hoped to gain a trade outpost in Bengal. As that war was lost due to the sudden betrayal of the commander in chief of Bengal to the British, post war Bengal was in a shock. Plus the betrayer assumed the Throne of Bengal and had zero legitimacy, forcing him to rely heavily on his British Mercenaries, effectively making him a British puppet
@@mvalthegamer2450 ok..... nobody asked for an explanation, especially from someone with a anime profile picture
@@clay119 You started the doubt thing. And an anime profile pic is better than no profile pic lol
It’s pretty unfair to group up the Napoleonic Wars and Revolutionary Wars as they were a set of wars and not the whole war itself
WAR of the First Coalition - French Victory
WAR of the Second Coalition - French Victory
WAR of the Third Coalition - French Victory
WAR of the Fouth Coalition - French Victory
WAR of the Fifth Coalition - French Victory
War of the Sixth and Seventh Coalition - French Defeats
War of 8th collation?
@@mrcool2107 there was only seven
@@mrcool2107 also I see you everywhere
Absolutely, I was about to say it
Imagine winning against 5 coalitions and still being called loosers
🤡🤡🤡🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️
What if Frederick Barbarossa never drowned but continued the Third Crusade?
I bet nothing much really it just gonna back to first crusade treaty but bit more Crusader states in modern Syria and Israel region
@@evvec1490I wouldn't count it off so easily, in his time he was a major force and the repercussions may have had a greater impact upon the timeline. Barbarossa was an incredibly charismatic leader, extremely organized with exceptional accomplishments before the crusade all over Europe. He was one of the medieval periods most powerful leaders heading the largest christian army to the middle east before his death, which never really participated in our history. He took part in foreign wars and politics, among others as the Danish Civil war and had negotiated for the Byzantines as well so he was active outside of his own borders during his rule. I would be interested in knowing what he would have done among Richard the Lionheart and the problems with Saladin. His reign had he lived would have been far reaching in many various parts of the Medieval world after the Crusades.
What if Germany won Operation Barbarossa, and Putin was dictator of New Russia?
@иιghτlιgнt you are supposed to insert an angry face/meme there (which you can't unfortunately) but just keeping it blank after " : " makes it weird.
"Frederick Barbarossa", is this the guy Operation Barborossa was named after or something?
What if the Knights Templar was never destroyed?
What if the Alamo never fell?
What if the Raid on Harper's Ferry succeeded?
What if Bleeding Kansas never happened?
This is definitely one of those many alt-history theories that whose impact on the world be so intense, that it be hard to gasp the all the changes.
Surely you mean “What if the French HAD colonized India”? The title like this sounds like a suggestion, and honestly I don’t think Macron has the balls to try :D
Máté Havlik it’s fixed while I’m here
Yeah, grammar nazis for the win!! XD
Boris will return India to imperial control
@@voidcatto1805 🤨hey,get a load of this BS.
What was the original title
What if Tecumseh’s confederacy survived?
What if Athens won the Peloponnesian War?
Feel free to start a conversation which I would be happy to respond to
question alternate Peloponnesian War scenario, could they have made a united greece or would they just fall to to the Macedonians like what actually happened.
Aidan O'Rourke The effect the war had on Greece was the fracture of the alliances at the time like the Peloponnesian league bringing them back to just city states. One scenario I can see with an Athens victory is a rivalry with Macedon as it starts gaining prevalence. I’m not sure if it would be a tight split or be one sided as I’m not sure about technology and military for each faction or if there are others involved.
Athens would continue to expand her empire but the moment she was threatened by an outside force (cough, Philip, cough) the colonies would start to revolt just like in the peloponnesian war. (This is just my humble opinion though)
5 ideas:
What if the Spanish Armada won?
What if the US joined the central powers?
What if war broke out over the Fashoda incident?
What if war broke out over the China Soviet border conflict in 1969?
What if the US never purchased Alaska in 1867?
If the Spanish Armada had won, it would very likely not change much, since the third Spanish Armada did win and land in Brittain but nothing happened.
They just realized they were too few to occupy the entire Island, packed up, and left.
If USA has joined central powers (or stayed neutral) then Central powers would have eventually won.
@@FaithfulOfBrigantia the :red armada did not win. They were destroyed by a storm. Only a few ships managed to land
@@FaithfulOfBrigantia The third Spanish Armada (1597) had 12,000 elite Spanish soldiers. A storm dispersed the fleet, a few kilometers from the coast, when the English fleet was lost in the Atlantic, very far from that scenario. Only 500 Spanish soldiers could reach the ground. But the idea was to invade London. If the 12,000 soldiers had landed, they went to London to dethrone the Protestant king, with the help of half the English population.
The Quebecois didn't help anglo-canadian cuisine because relations between the two were never great. Both communities kept to its own (and arguably still do), but french-canadian cuisine is actually pretty good and complex
They would all have French accents if they spoke English!
No they would speak French with an Indian accent just like how Indians have an Indian accent when they speak English
No the Indian accent is because our Hindi words. Imagine Indians who put pressure on every single letter trying to speak French.
The accent that we'd have while speaking english would be HORRENDOUS
@@kakalimukherjee3297 Nope. French accent is actually quite good. Indian accent is probably the worst in the world. Especially bengali and south Indian accent.
@@mayankdewli1010
Have you any evidence to back up your claim that the French accent is good?
They cannot pronounce the R sound, they cannot pronounce H, neither can they pronounce hard Ts and Ds. In the Indian accent, on the on the hand, all these features are not only pronounced, but exaggerated (that's what makes the accent Indian in the first place).
And that's why the Indian accent is far more understandable than the French accent.
I love this channel, because you talk about so many changes that I would have never thought about. you are very smart
The hundreds of local micro-states or rajadoms would be far much more influencial or effective - The subcontinent definetly wouldn't be as much as unified as Today
Why ? France is a very centralized state, and has been that way since the XVIe century. The idea of a political structure within the state isn't something that exist in the french idea of a nation, unlike in the UK, where you have several subnational organisations (Scotland, Northern Irland...)
France was already busy annexing territory and had effectively turned one of the biggest states in India (Hyderabad) into a puppet under French control before the British beat them in the 7 Years War. If they had won the Carnatic Wars France would have done the exact same thing as Britain, if anything it's likely the princely states would have even less autonomy than they did under the British.
@Aman Lool how exactly does that change that in the 1740's early 1750's France was stronger than Britain in India?
Without the french invasion of Portugal and the flee of the royal family to Brazil, the Brazil would stay also a colony a bit longer and Portugal more stable.
How would this impact abolishing slavery and later European migration according to you ?
French ppl would be the ones drinking tea
Baguette and tea!
@@jixo6294 It's too much power in the hands of a single nation !
Lol.
Hahahahahahahahah
If Spain had colonized India. I would write this in español
Two problems with the video is:
1. Japan industrialized because US forcing Japan to open up caused intense xenophobia and soon rebellion from Satsuma that brought down the Shougun and put Emperor on power.
It ended up having the effect of speeding up industrialisation rather then reversing it
It is doubtful whether Japan would have industrialized without China getting smashed up, but it is a possibility
2. Pakistan had best and most open economy in South Asia before Soviet and US wars in Afghanistan (see Ayub Khan)
Otherqise brilliant as always
What if persia stayed Zoroastrian
What if the qing dynasty survived
What if Japan joined the central power's
We Zoroastrians would not need to flee to India!!
@@Persian-Immortal tell that to my Zoroastrian landlord lol
But ngl zoroastrian are very good at managing their finances
@@Persian-Immortal you have 3 biggest and greatest empires with you just be proud of it simple bro
1.Persian empire(5.5 million sq km)
2.Sassanian empir(3.5 million sqkm)
3.Parthian empire(2.8 million sq km)
If I was Parsi bro I would keep my heads high walk with honor only bro
What we have
1. Gupta empire(3.5 Million sqkm)
2. Karkota empire(3 million sq km)
3.Maratha empire(2.6 million sqkm)
4. Chola empire (2 million sq km)
We have another empire but we don't have proves and evidence to claim it actually the Europeans and Arabs made him Mythical or fictional emperor.
Many people want to erase him from the world
We call him Vikramaditya Parmar who ruled ancient India from 57 BC to 15 AD.
Vikramaditya(5 million sqkm)
He ruled directly
1. North India
2. Pakistan
3. Nepal
4. Bhutan
5. Bangladesh
He ruled indirectly
1. Deccan plateau region
2. Burma land
3. North east india actually.
With Territories,Vassal and tributary states it will be 5 million sq km of land at least is my feeling actually
What? No Napoleon goes to India to forge his own empire scenario? I am shocked! I am actually serious, most alternate history where the french Revolution does not happen, completely sidetracks Napoleon. Even with no revolution, he is still a genius military leader (a general like Hannibal, not a state leader but enough to turn the tide of a war) with a lot of ambition.
Anywho, great work, keep on, I love your videos.
I'm so sick and tired of everyone calling France cowards and losers, it's just so unfair, France is a military genius, and it was just unlucky that everyone remembers that one time they surrendered in WW2, and think it's how the French fight all their wars. if Britain wasn't an island, they would be overrun just as easily by Germany in WW2 as France, well maybe not, because France would have invaded and annexed them long before that.
That's true. The island of Great Britain was a great advantage for them, against the invasion attempts of the hegemonic empires of Europe, which invaded all the capitals of Western Europe: Spain under Philip II, France under Napoleon, Prussia under Bismarck and Germany. Japan also had that same kind of advantage, and so it was not invaded by the Mongols, nor did it have European colonialism, nor communism, nor great upheavals, but rather a certain stability. The island is the key factor. Apart from the fact that the Royal Navy won some key battles on some specific occasions, because they could allocate almost the entire military budget to the fleet, having a small army, due to the island factor.
I have an idea for a video series. What if the moon was habitable? I say series because it would change technology, mythology and history. However, you cover wide topics good too, so one video would be short and swift, but a series more detailed. No realistic POD needed.
I love alternate histories involving space exploration. Habitable Venus and Mars would also be pretty fun in that context. Although I don't think we could really get there much earlier than in our timeline. Maybe as early as 1940s if we really tried. In any case, I imagine the late Cold War would take the turn similar to the 1600s and 1700s competition for the American colonies, with superpowers and private investors competing for all the good stuff these celestial bodies may offer. By now, we could be living through the first large emigration wave to the other worlds.
@@TapOnX actually, if my calculations are right, we would be there in 1889.
@@ivanthegreat2.070 Interesting, but how would we get there without reliable avionics, radios, control systems, sensors, and so forth? Are you proposing that the technology would accelerate faster in that timeline? I am not sure if the vernesque approach would make that much sense all things considered.
@@TapOnX you are spot on. Based on how fast it took Germany to make a tank during world war one, divided by two since we have a cold war esque situation, I assume we would have Gauss guns on 1864, launch objects into space 10 years late, and then get railguns in 1879. Add 10 years, and we arrive on the moon via the Swiss in 1889.
Ivan the Great 2.0 Guns can’t get you to orbit because of how orbital dynamics work. Not to mention literally everything would have to be manned. Rockets are needed for any railgun system.
Plus, there were easier targets in the 19th century. East Asia was never really partitioned, after all.
Also, a habitable moon would be so large it would make the Earth and Moon tidally locked, which would turn both landmass areas to merely equatorial bands, like on Titan.
Habitable Mars and Venus only work if they’re practically deserts (or in the case of Mars, with far more greenhouse gases) due to being at the edges of the habitable zone (water is a greenhouse gas and increases albedo if ice. In either case, with Mars, you would still need a mask system to breathe properly with all the greenhouse gases (even low increases in CO2 levels can cause the brain to not properly function inspectapedia.com/hazmat/Carbon_Dioxide_Hazards.php ). And seasons on Mars would be extreme due to its orbit.
The worst casualty would be no cricket in India. It's like a parallel religion for us. French would have either introduced football or nothing.
We would give you ''jeu de paume'' (tennis ancester)
We would have introduced Petanque, Petanque is played by Pondichery inhabitants
For an Indian football fan, this would be a heaven.
I'm always so excited whenever you upload. Keep it up!
So a few things, with an Austrian Netherlands still existing due to no Congress of Vienna and no Napoleon I think Austria could’ve used the coal in this region to industrialize and possibly unite Germany, since the Rhineland not going to Prussia would also hinder its potential industrial capabilities. To further the idea of Austrian unification I think that with Religion still playing a larger part in politics France would likely back Austria instead of the Napoleon III I’m staying neutral but what can you give me bullshit
The Netherlands had a supply line across all of Europe and through other empires. So...
Good point about Belgium & coal. I don't see what would cause the HRE to fall without Napoleon, nor what would trigger the identity nationalism of the 19th century.
You're right too on religion. French society was bogged down throughout the 19th century, even after Napoleon, not triggering state secularism until near the end. How would the Catholic missionary push impact India? Would this create or prevent a similar 1857 Indian Mutiny?
@@innosam123 He wrote "Austrian Netherlands" aka Belgium, not Dutch/Holland/Nederlands.
@@ElGrandoCaymano Still disconnected from Austria by half a continent. Bit of a problem.
@@innosam123 What is disconnected? How is the HRE disconnected from either?
The explanation of France and Britain's colonial attitudes is my favourite part XD
Can you do "what if the July 20th plot succeeded"?
Well, probably a three way cold war between the German State (soon to be second German empire) the USSR, and the US, plus their allies.
France won the War of the Austrian Succession as well as the Franco-Dutch War. Moreover, you could've separated the Napoleonic Wars into all the individual coalition wars, of which France would've won all except for the sixth and seventh ones. Also, it's debatable whether France truly lost WWII because Free France did prevail in the end.
I don't think many people debate whether France lost WW2.
France lost the war of succession and the Franco Dutch war. Oh dear...
@@lesdodoclips3915 the actual spanish king is a Bourbon, you know ?
@@lesdodoclips3915
no
@@ElGrandoCaymano
France won and occupied a part of Germany lol
I'm honestly way too annoyed at you putting "Vikings" as a top 5 *militaries* for 1000 AD
choose a specific group of vikings (which doesn't make that much sense as individually none could compare with most of the actual militaries)
Or don't call it militaries. the vikings weren't a united military force, I mean if we put them together we might as well pool "mafia" and have it as one of the strongest militaries in modern times
Maybe he was referring to a great heathen/summer army type situation, that was a bit earlier then 1000 AD. I know it wasn't really a unified group but it's the closest thing when it comes to vikings
you can debate land combat but you can't deny their naval effectiveness.
@@ethanwmonster9075 They weren't really even that good at fighting on water, that wasn't their type of warfare. They were great seafarers, but their forces would land and fight as infantry basically.
Considering how groups were very autonomous in their decision making and governance. It would be difficult to name one specific group or state, as a result one can't choose a specific group.
Ehm JOMSVIKINGS ARE THE BEST
Ah, the Clive-less World, the very first timeline I read and was entranced by.
French people are too emotional and passionate, thats why they have so many riots and revolutions.
Says the guy with a pizza as a profile picture.
@Matricx700 That has nothing to do with a people being passionate and emotional
@Matricx700 Why don't you want to be passionate?
@Matricx700 Ah, I see.
@Matricx700 I thought of it as the French people being too passionate and emotional to handle being under a tyrannical or failed government
You forgot how the outcome of Waterloo was decided by the fact that it rained the night before and Napoleon had to wait 2 or three hours before attacking so that the ground could harden to use his artillery and cavalry. If you haven't done one yet please do one where Napoleon wins at Waterloo or wins his 1812 invasion of Russia.
Also as a fellow Canadian I'm pissed off about how you said that the Quebecois hasen't helped Anglo Canadian cuisine. Have you forgotten about Poutine?
slight correctiion about Plassey, a major portion of the Bengali army under Mir Jafar had jsut abandoned the battle before,due to him being bribed by being offered the position of Nawab,but e rebelled again against his puppet status and got put down(again).SO the main consideration should be the treachery not happening
Dear God thus comment section is horrible. 90% of comments are people screaming rudely into the void about their scenario, nobody is actually talking about the video itself.
For example, this is a really great video, but I wish you had touched upon what India would look like today borders-wise. Would the subcontinent be unified, sinilar to what it is now, or fractured even more?
Ah, back when whatifalthist actually made alternate history videos and wasn't insane.
All I know is that French-Indian fusion cuisine would be terrific.
Indian curry is litterally one of the best thing in the universe. I like french cuisine but i fell like on a day-to-day basis we mostly eat random stuff, not all those famous dishes.
No look at the Mauritian cuisine
Europe:Help
Britain: *oh no*
France: *boss music.mp3*
If the French had controlled the Suez, I think the Rhone valley would become insanely industrialized, with Marseilles being a main entrepot of Europe: Bringing in spices, silks, etc from India, and pumping out textiles and heavy industry products that are developed further upriver around Dijon and Alsace today where there are massive iron and coal deposits. I wonder too if it would have become a large shipyard as well since the forests of central France and Germany would be fairly accessible? Southern France would probably have become very similar to the English midlands (i.e., Leeds, Machester, Liverpool) in the 19th century.
yep, that's what i thought during the video. if our riches come from india, then it would be the rhone valley that industrialize
Rhone Valley is the New Silicon Valley
The french actually controlled Suez
We could be been known as " Le Indian".B t w you analysis of Battle of Plassey (1757) was slightly incorrect. French were bound to loose. It's because the main army of the Nawab, under his prime minister Mir Zafar was inactive as he had stuck a secret deal with Robert Clive whereby upon British victory, Mir Zafar will become the Nawab. The French did perform well in battle but would have lost anyway. Also they were fewer than the British. So impact wise, they were nascent. Still a nice. Video. I'mma Bengali myself.
Ah yes the land of fish
And yeah good poets,sweets and music too i guess lol
You sound more relaxed then normal :)
great video. Your content is always so fascinating and intriguing
As an person Indian descent, I would want a timeline by an excellent alternate historian like you in which India was never colonised by any foreign power.
EDIT: you should study about the third battle of panipat which was the reason India got colonised. It was also the bloodiest day in Indian history and the 18th century
Panipat is overrated dude.... Marathas were fine Afghanis were so shattered after the battle that they went back.... No land was lost.... The real problem was the fact that marathas became a confedracy instead of an empire
The Kamal Kartik I want you to watch these videos ua-cam.com/play/PLuUyUVWGvPKm5naSg4EkuFHHudlOfaUWd.html
Search Gurkani Alam if you didn found it already.
If France had colonized India we could have seen and witness the emergence of the world’s greatest fusion cuisine such as baguette roti sandwich made with ghee French butter and French Charcuterie, Biryani with French paneer and ragout curry.
What if the French and the British stayed well within their own boundaries and little islands keeping the hell out of India and other nations eh?
I'm intrigued by those missed Canadian Civil wars and I'd definitely like a video on the topic.
You would have Indians speaking French with Indian accents... imagine the horror...
No need to imagine, see Mauritius
It would be very cool.
@@babla69420 Mauritius is creole, there is nothing indian anymore there
@@gokalzetop4183 i saw a few vlogging videos from there, people speaking hindi and bhojpuri alongside french didn't seem too alien to me
Holy shit
The problem is, the French did attempt to invade Konbaung dynasty (Third Burmese Empire) but were defeated and some were captured (Portuguese met the same faith earlier). French then established ties with French and France had been helping the Burmese ever since by supplying weapons to fight the British, Konbaung dynasty did send a request to French to help them in the Anglo-Burmese war but French was busy with their own issues at that time and the letter came too late
What if France had colonise Burma
13:23 Nice that even in this alternate history China's humiliation would've only been delayed, not prevented. 😂
There's several mistakes here, particularly about the Industrial Revolution. It's one thing to speak about how it initially started, it's another to speak about how other countries emulated it under different conditions, particularly in the case of Belgium, Germany, Denmark and Japan. There is a lot of copying and taking advantage of conditions created by other colonial powers there, so we can't consider these in a vacuum.
Also, speaking of that, as you speculated there would be no French Revolution (at least not in the same way as real life), this raises a lot of questions about French history as it would proceed. The French Empire in Africa was built and maintained under a largely Republican era in French history.
Can we really say that the way this would have been implemented and maintained in a French royalist empire would be the same? The end result would likely be similar as you mention in the difference between France and Britain, but perhaps this should have been addressed.
Also, I think you're giving Britain too much credit for the limited number of democracies that came out of their former colonies (and that's not even asking how democratic many of them really are, or how democratic Britain really was or is...). Britain did not foster democracy in its colonies (unless they were white) and any representation was just a means of control.
The "democratic" tendencies were likely far more the result of the international climate after WW2, including the contribution to international politics made by the Soviet Union and the USA. And also domestic issues and political thought inspired by that coming out of Europe.
It is possible, even likely that the key events that led to this line of events with democracy, nation-states and Neocolonialism would have occurred one way or another, whowever it is unexplored in the video. It would be radically different world by 1945 without a French Revolution (or at least the one that came to pass) and with a diminished British Empire focused on North America.
How would this impact later revolutions? Would something similar occur? Would Russia experience anything similar to their Revolution? Would the United States have expanded or survived if the Caribbean and Canada were so important to the British Empire as it would stand in this timeline?
These might sound like knitpicks next to the scale of this scenario, but they're worth mentioning. Otherwise a great exploration of a topic which easily and quickly tremors outward, more than many probably realise.
8:00 German states have a *shit ton* of autonomy dude. People have this impression that Germany is quasi-unitary the way Russia or Mexico are; it isn't. Revenue as far as I can tell is centralized, but lawmaking and regulatory authority are more decentralized than even in the US.
Russia, Mexico, the US, and Germany are all federations. Germany is really less centralized than them all?
The British museum would have been half as large as today.
As a British lad, i hated that thumbnail passionately
Are you happy with the British colonel
I half-expected Whatifalthist's Anglo sensibilities to be so revolted by the idea that he would describe the timeline as an "Axis WW2 victory"-tier disaster.
@Indian Atheist HEY NO RACIST COMMENTS HERE MATE
@@kingj8748 I hate Britain
@@amalsp8955 yes cause India wouldn’t have been unified if it weren’t for the British.
One thing I am a little surprised you did not mention here was French Catholic missionary zeal. With l'Ancien Régime still around, would you not think that there would be lots of French Jesuits and nuns heading off to India to "convert the heathen"?
One of the differences I notice between Protestant and Catholic nations' colonies is that the Protestants did not care much about converting the colonised peoples (British in NA, Brits in India, Africa, or the Dutch in Indonesia) whereas the Catholics invested a lot into spreading their religion (French in Québec, Spanish in the New World, Portuguese in Timor-Leste).
Anyway, I discovered your channel not long ago, and I think it's great, keep up the good work and recover swiftly from your present illness!
Quebec gave us poutine. That must count for something. 😊
Putin?
What if india colonized Britain
I really like how ppl like their own comment to hopefully kickstart its growth.
@@jihangirastra3851 someone has to get the ball rolling, and it has worked out pretty well for me lol
It can't happen . See how far Britian and India is
@@mrcool2107yeah, but india could take over Britain for old times sake lmao
7:26 what’s that game? Looks kinda fun even though I know nothing about it
Risk maybe
At 0:16 in the 1250 section, the wrong English banner is displayed. The St. George's cross would only come into use in the 16th century and even then it would be the official flag of England until the 17th century.
Also, (and take this with a grain of salt) Japan would probably still industrialize at around the same time period as in OTL. From what I've read, there were multiple western powers competing for influence over the Japanese Archipelago. I know that the Americans (of course) and the British were attempting to meddle in Japanese affairs and I believe that the French also were involved (again, take this with a grain of salt). Either way, I still could see France Matthew-Perrying their way into Japan for similar reasons to the U.S and U.K.
2:16
This image is of the 1857 First war of Independence
ICSE class 10?
I must correct : Spanish war 1700 is a french Victory. Bourbon dinasty still established in Spain.
Also ww2 comeback is a french Victory. First army in austria etc
That's a nice scenario. You know what's another good scenario? *WHAT IF THE HELLENISTIC REGIMES WERE NEVER CONQUERED BY ROME?*
Dude your videos are awesome I love them.
If french controlled India , India might have earned freedom much earlier because the French were already weak during WW2 because of fighting with the Nazis and indian freedom movement was growing really strong during ww2
What if the French had subdued Mexico to its influence
Yea somewhat true actually...
The Side effect would be that every Indian instead of speaking English would be speaking French and U.K would have been an irrelevant country and no Hong Kong I guess....
As a UA-camr starting out (Skeleton Keys Production SKP") and as a massive supporter of this channel (one of my main inspirations tbh), I'm about to release a video on "What if the British Never Ruled India?" which has many parallels with this timeline, but which adds in some things that I feel that @whatifalthist missed here, such as the effect on Britain itself (culturally, sense of self, linguistics etc.), as well as focusing more on how big of an impact India had on the British Empire (population, economy, military etc). I'll also compare Pondicherry with Mumbai (Bombay), Madras (Chennai) and Kolkata (Calcutta) to show how French rule led to a mediocre state compared to British rule leading to booming megacities that are financial and trading hubs (think also Singapore and Hong Kong). Also the bit in this video about Australia and Indochina I feel were a bit pulled out of the air, however the Middle East bit is spot on. Also, would there even be a WWI that Britain would be in, as a major cause was Kaiser Wilhelm's personal jealousy over British imperial might that he wanted to emulate through a Naval arms race (plus Hitler was jealous of India too and wanted to emulate the British Raj in Eastern Europe.)
Sorry if this feels like a long rant, like I said I love the channel but there's always multiple angles with each Alternative History scenarios and this channel is still BY FAR heads and tails above the rest! Big up my man @whatifalthist
that chart of your top 5 militaries of the last 1000 years made me want to tear my eyes out... at parts, it looks like you're talking about pound-for-pound military strength, which is really the only way to justify putting Prussia as #1 in 1750, even though France's military was far, far larger and more powerful overall, the "viking military", which wasn't a thing unless you're talking about, like, the great heathen army, and Normans as #2 and #4 in 1000 AD respectively, despite the Seljuks and HRE both being far, far larger and more powerful overall. Hell, the West Francian military that the Normans tenatively served under was far more powerful, as were the Cordoban, Bulgarian, Polish, and arguably English militaries. Are you confusing the Normans with West Francia? And the Teutonic Knights at #5 in 1250 is a huge stretch. Also, you used the Timurid flag for the Uzbeks, and regardless of which one you meant, in the year 1500, neither could be considered a "top 5" military- even with Ming far past their peak, and Muscovy far before theirs, they both easily had more powerful militaries. Also, Castille wasn't a country in 1500- they had been part of Spain for a decent while before then. And it's easy to look at Prussia being able to hold it's own on the continent against France, Austria, and Russia during the Seven Year's War and conclude they were the most powerful military in the world, but you have to consider that they basically completely bankrupted their economy and lost an enormous chunk of their population, and that, even despite that, it was only really because of the two Miracles of the House of Brandenburg, and having a very effective king, that they were able to get out of it alive. Overall, France's military was far larger and more powerful at the time. The only military assessment I would agree with is the one for 2000 AD.
Indians would be speaking French and maybe even become a dominant force in Asian football qualifying for the World Cup more often
No lol . India is good in cricket
@@mrcool2107 that's because we were colonised by the british they introduced us to cricket
@@mrcool2107 British introduced cricket in India
What if the Ottomans survived as an empire into the 21st century?
Here's an idea for a video:what if Decembrisr revolt never happened? It was an event that had shaped the russian history,policy and culture for the next century,would be nice if you covered it.
No onev
Whatifalthist: What if a billion people went _Hon! Hon! Hon! Baguette Baguette™_
Imagine curry croissant 🥐
instead of real live's "Tee and crumpets, God save the queen, cheerio, mate""
Hey man love your videos and have been watching for a really long time
If I may make one suggestion, maybe add some background music so the video comes across less dry
Still love your stuff!
Hey, what game did yoy show at 7:26? Does anyone recognize it?
I don’t know if you’ve already looked at any of these scenarios, but....
What if the Bronze Age Collapse never happened?
What if Antony & Cleopatra had won?
What if Alfred had never united the Anglo-Saxon kingdoms into what would become England?
What if the Romans had abandoned England in the era of Boudiccea?
What if France (or the Dutch) had colonised Australia first?
I resent your crack at our cuisine!
What if instead of the democratic nations allying with the ussr the Soviet German non aggression pact is maintained and they both go to war with allies in turn basically what if the ussr joined the axis?
Stalin trusted Hitler.
I appreciate the extra info on the cards, but I wish you would say everything out loud, even if means splicing an audio track, and even if it makes the video long. I like listening while I work or do other things.
3:55
Wouldn't the British try even harder to retain the East cost of America since it didn't have India.
I thought the same thing. Without the Napoleonic wars to distract them and constantly trying to keep their hands on India, the British would be able to bring much more of their military might to bear in a reconquest of the colonies. They might start by conquering them in ones and twos, splintering them away from the main country Maybe re-infiltrating former Tories former loyalist strongholds like New York to soften them up first.
16:12 for a second there I thought you said 'whatifautist' and I'm not ashamed to admit it.
Yeah, I hear that one to. People say I have a strange accent, but it's the norm in my part of North America, so I don't hear it.
What if the Ottomans lost the crusade of Varna?
The Revolution would still happen due the the french nobility taking most of the stuff, the people would revolt to not stay as the peasants and try to make the society more equal in france. And so they would probably not need to sell Louisiana to the US to build a strong navy, they would already have india as their bank, so france would've been able to easily build up large navies to try to conquer UK, and may even habe successful (very low chances), but if that happened then basically france would control about 50-70% of the world in all sectors, it would have 30-40% of the world's land, so ye.
What if the French military was good in wwii (like the Italian video)
Mmmm, yes
It was good in 1940. It was just that some of French generals were bribed by the Germans beforehand. The French also had better or at least comparible tanks. The French high command even had a planned invasion of Germany sometime around 1939 ish but the government had the "peace in our time" mentality so they never went through with it.
@@BobbyB1928 omg, don't be so technical lol. I am well aware the French military on paper was superior to the Germans. There main problems are that they were surprised by the Germans blitzing through the ardenelles and their tactics were outdated for WWII. It is fairly common knowledge that the French were the military master of the continent in the interwar era
@@dejankojic4293 now that is a unattractive name
@Dejan/Дејан Kojić/Којић it would've been a stomp. Germany wouldn't have had the numbers, planes, or tanks. The British would have still sent the 300,000 ish force like they actually did in our timeline. A drive towards Berlin would have been too costly so the French/British would have swallowed up some border territory along with the rhineland and held untill Germany agreed to an ceasefire
I feel like Britain and Russia would ally against France without the paranoia of a Russian ivasion of India
I have some disagreements with your list of French war victories and defeats.
First you didn't list many important wars that ended up as French victories : Devolution War (1667-1668), Franco-Spanish War (1635-1659), Franco-Chinese Wars and conquest of Indochina, Spanish Expedition (1823). Most of more minor conflicts also ended up as French victories.
Second you list some wars as defeats while they are French victories : Franco-Dutch War, 2nd World War (lost the battle of France but was on the victor's side)
Third you list some wars as defeats while they're inconclusive (some stuff/nothing won some stuff/nothing lost) : War of Spanish Succession, Nine Years War, War of Austrian Succession
For a complete list : fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liste_des_guerres_de_la_France
Otherwise, intesresting video ! In this timeline, what would become French Louisiana ?
He also misclassified 2 i would say
-In the Franco-Spanish War of 1635-1659 and the War of Devolution, Spain was simultaneously at war with France, England, the Netherlands, Portugal, the Turkish Empire, revolts in Italy and Protestant Germany, and other conflicts on five continents: Mapuches from Chile, Apaches, Morocco, Filipino Moors, Berber pirates, with 70% of America's wealth, mortgaged on the Westernization of America, while England, France and Holland took home the wealth of their empires. France won in France (Franche-Comté and some Belgian towns). Spain beat France in Catalonia, Italy and the rest of Belgium. Spain signed peace like France in 1815. But all the Spanish kings died in their beds.
-In the War of Succession, France had 3/4 of Spain as an ally, with all the gold and silver of America, and the decision of the last king of Spain to inherit the throne to Felipe V, grandson of a queen Spanish. France was decisive, but with that help.
-In the war of 1823, invasion of the 100,000 sons of San Luis, Spain was divided into a civil war, at the same time as the war in all of Hispanic America. France acted on the mandate of the Congress of Vienna.
-Spain inherited French Louisiana, after 7 years wars, because we had a Western world already built, and the British could not conquer it.
Napoleon and the French Army I think it is the most brilliant military period in France, with an unstoppable army and the best military strategist in history: Napoleon.
I think you may be overestimating the effects of the Opium Wars on Japan's industrialization. The black ships of Perry and various incidents at Shimonoseki and Kagoshima gave Japan plenty of incentive to modernize.
What If Islam never existed?
World peace
Fate of Japan: I disagree about Japan falling to Russia. The western Russian Empire is a vast wilderness that was only united by the Trans- Siberian railroad, (built 1891-1916). This rail line was too thin to support the major overseas invention of the Japanese islands.
What if Maratas unified India ?
India will become hindu rashtra and most non tolerant country in the world
@@deutschelehrer69 bro india isn't germany. Marathas were far more civilized than any european can ever concieve, more importantly, they weree pretty secular.
practically, India would have maintained its wealth and global status, under a competent empire. Perhaps, a slower global industrialisation would've taken place, because the europeans wouldn't have had the resources to start one, and there wouldn't be such incentive in India because the society was already very wealthy. It would've happened, perhaps maybe in USA or somewhere Europe or perhaps somewhere in India, but I am guessing that once it would've ignited it would've spread like wildfire all over the world and not just Europe. Also, China would not have been humiliated, and industrialisation would've spread in China as well. I am guessing the rate of industrialisation would again, be slower, but more widespread and uniform. Probably more scientific advancement though, because scienitifc ideas from Europe were spreading in India irl, until the British destroyed academia in India. But with Marathas, Indian scientists would have accelerated scientific progress. I'm not sure if China would've opened up seeing others industrialise or not... Japan would've probably been slower in its advancement, for similar lack of incentive reason. And no way in hell world wars would happen. Tbh, history and world events are so random and unpredictable that there's no point in speculating. Noone thought some poor islanders would end up taking over half the world, for example. So, this is just speculative entertainment and nothing more.
Calcutta would still have sorta a mix of British, French and Bengali culture. It would be interesting, as I am from there.
Calcutta would never develop if French took over India because Calcutta grew out to become a city only after the British conquered Bengal in the Battle of Plassey . Infact , if British lost at the battle of plassey , the brits would would most probably have been kicked out of fort william by the nawab or the british would not gain much influence henceforth which would result in calcutta developing into a small town just like other colonial outposts became ( just like Chandannagore , bandel , srirampur are today ) Maybe chandannagar would have developed into a city but it may not exert much influence mainly because the centre of french colonial administration in india was pondicherry/puduchery
What's the tabletop game at 7:25?
Risk probably
Instead of doing 'Hii hello' , we would've doing...... 'Bonjour'!!!!!!