The one error here is that in those times Louisiana was Spanish territory, ceded to Spain after the 7 years war, and it was like that until Napoleon siezed it after invading Spain to sell it to the US
Video suggestion: What if France succeeded in creating a settler colony in Algeria? Would likely need to tweak Napoleon III’s rule and/or the Franco Prussian war.
Interestingly, without American independence, the Methodist movement in the colonies may have never become it's own Church. They largely left the colonial Anglican Church out of necessity and the neglect of English bishops to send more ministers to the colonies. If Britain becomes more involved in the colonies in this timeline, I'd believe that would include the state Church as well, maybe negating the largest practical reason for the creation of the Methodist Episcopal Church. Of course all that still may not be enough to overcome doctrinal tensions between the Established Church and the Methodists, since they were forced to be a dissenting faction by the late 18th cent.
I doubt the patriots revolt in Canada would happen without the American revolution as it was inspired by the American revolution. Also, Canada is this timeline would have a distinctly higher ratio of French Canadians compared to English Canadians as loyalists would just stay in their original colonies especially in lower Canada where the English population would be a few thousand at most. This would in turn secure more influence and power to French Canadians and avoid the revolt. Also, I believe the British would just backstab the Iroquois when it would become beneficial to them. Similar situations happened to the Métis in Manitoba, the Zulu in South Africa or with King Philip’s War. The Iroquois where also hated by other indigenous tribes who would side with the British if the Iroquois became too powerful as the Iroquois tended to be vicious to other tribes. Except for those two critiques, I thoroughly enjoyed the video.
Have to disagree about the Quebec situation, at least partially. Part of the reason for the American Revolution was restrictions on moving further west, which was intended to consolidate control rather than overstretching the British Empire. Part of this plan was to entice British settlers to move north in Quebec, accomplishing much the same result as had occurred in Louisiana otl. Frankly, the whole revolution later on makes little sense, as the restrictions on western expansion would have lapsed by this time, and the civilised tribes would be under British rule. Slavery would presumably be abolished in line with historical British abolitionism, where slaveowners were compensated and the slaves were transported to Africa - historically the British did this in Sierra Leone, and the Americans similarly attempted to set up an African-American settler state in Liberia. This would do much to assuage the fears of the Southerners spurred on by Haiti and the events therein. I agree with your assessment about the Iroquois - while the Iroquois Confederation would exist for a time, the British would obviously move further west. There was no notion of it existing beyond the time when it was useful.
@@whitehawk4099 The vast majority of emancipated slaves in the British Empire were not transported back to Sierra Leone after Emancipation, and repatriation was not official imperial policy. The descendants of these enslaved people still live in the English-speaking Caribbean.
@@gemmeldrakes2758 No, but enough were that it, combined with historical plans for repatriation, notably held by Abraham Lincoln, would likely be enacted to a greater extent in the American colonies. There was great fear there due to the Haitian Revolution and its consequences, and in this scenario those colonies likely would have gained responsible government by that time.
@@whitehawk4099 But I doubt there would be a successful Haitian Revolution in this timeline. Since there is no French revolution to disrupt the Empire so the slave rebellion would probably have been put down.
An Iroquois protracted under the British is exciting, and having an Industrial Anglican America might been a concept for some alternate historians. Having the Iroquois industrialize is an interesting idea, for most people have never discussed that possibility, and this something needs to be explored in a future alternate history video. This is a terrific video, Mr. US of Z. I like the historical lessons you did and remade into this historical worldbuilding. You deserve more likes and subscribers for this video and respect and recognition for your effort in these videos. I really mean it!
Ah that was a gaff. I misread an old thing I wrote and thought Washington sent a letter asking Garibaldi to train the Colonial Army, but it was actually Lincoln who asked him to train the Union Army. That was a silly mistake that I should’ve spotted.
As I recall, Japan initially *didn’t* preserve its traditional self all that much initially, but rather went pretty much all in on westernization, only much later on being subject to revivalism. Also side note, the Iroquois confederacy core was in what is today upstate New York, not in the western Great Lakes, that was part of their short lived empire.
Lafayette joined the American cause in 1777, a full year before France joined the war. He was there as a foreign volunteer, not as a representative of his government.
Just my two cents: the American Revolution was the first of its kind. Sure, there were Medieval and Renaissance republics (Venice, Novgorod, United Provinces) but none of them were erected following the successful throwing off the joke of a monarchy. The American Revolution virtually bisected the Anglo-Saxon civilization. That doesn’t just “happen.” There’s no evidence in my mind that would allude to widespread Spanish American revolutions (despite the tensions) without the American and French Revolutions as an example. And without the American Revolution-for reasons you mentioned and reasons you left out-there would be no reason, and no fertile ground for a French Revolution at all. Thereby, no Napoleon, and thereby, no Spanish breakaway republics. North and South America would be unrecognizable by 2024, possibly with 5-15 native nation states, 3-4 British Dominions, 3-4 Spanish Viceroyalties, +Brazil. The Americas would remain a backwater compared to the old world.
I felt like when you chose the more interesting route with a Native American protectorate state thing for the Iroquois I felt that maybe the most realistic path would be the “better” path to go. Also would love to either see a longer video seeing how the war ends, and the rest of history realistically goes until there can’t be anymore predicted. Other than that very good video!
7:32 So the territories you've granted to the Iroquois are actually held by other British allies that formed the socalled "Northwest Confederacy" (Shawnee, Lenape, Miami, and others) and would probably react very poorly to the take over. The Iroquois would have probably held their lands in upstate NY, though maybe not as the Iroquois actually split in half over British vs American support As a result some of the nations within the Iroquois Confederacy would definitely have land while others would lose it
The Northwest Confederacy was plurality Cherokee and Iroquois, but for the sake of simplicity I used the Iroquois as the poster child for the state given their good relations to the British, and the fact that they were the first signatories of the Detroit letter. I’m also aware of the earlier Iroquois Confederacy along Lake Eerie, from which the Iroquois migrated to modern day Michigan and Wisconsin.
Great scenario. I’m wondering what sparked the “rebellions” in Upper and Lower Canada in the 1830’s? As a Canadian, I don’t think of it as a time when there was too much discussion of independence - the population overall was still quite low, particularly in Upper Canada (Ontario). Certainly some of the bigger tensions could have been the tension between the French Canadians in Lower Canada, of course, and their British overlords. Thats always been an historical oddity - Quebec retaining its uniquely French culture despite being under ostensibly Anglo rule for over 3 centuries.
I think the British would try to civilize (no im not putting in quotations) the Iroquois by having them build trading and industrial cities on the Great lakes coast and would send Anglican bishops and ministers into Iroquois lands. Creating a class of Ethnically mix Anglo-Iroquois class of priests and aristocracy ruling over a predominantly native population through Anglo-Native mix chieftains, aristocrats, and clergy, gradually Anglicizing the Iroquois.
@@DeanMonsieur it didn't develop in our timeline but could of with this timelines further integration of native Americans among the British. Leading to a domino affect, or rather a new precedence of miscegenation policies to assimilate new native lands.
So what you’re saying is when America actually was an English colony from 1607-1776 they weren’t all very English/Anglican-Protestant. But somehow 20 years after a war which divided the nation (temporarily in this timeline not permanent) they all suddenly become homogeneous and all the states become 1 generic Anglican English north and 2 generic Scot’s Methodists south. With the real history of religion in this region with this alt history trajectory I still don’t see it being very homogeneous maybe just closer in culture/Germanic Protestantism. Even if England combined it into one dominion or kingdom like an Ireland/Canada/or a wales it still would have varying local populations like irl Ireland/England/Australia/SA/etc… The only main difference I see is no republicanism but the whigs (anti monarchy/constitutional monarchy party) would still be dominant like irl as they’re still in England today. Milder mass immigrations (yes they still occur as so many people left the old world for ANY new world nation not just US) and more English/British culture.
What do you think this idea for a future alternate history scenario: What if the death and exile of Cathrine Aragon resulted a war between the Kingdom of England under the House of Tudor and the Holy Roman Empire under Haspburg Dynasty? What this war was caused a rumor that Herny VIII had poisoned Catherine and what if the rumors were true? What do you think of that idea, Mr. US of Z? What are your thoughts, comments, and opinions about this idea?
A note id like to add is since america was were prisoners were sent we could see a scramble for Australia, another thing is that Poland might still exist since the leader at the time was making a liberal constitution and without France being France there could still be a Poland and there's also still a Dutch south Africa so if we some how have a scramble for Africa the Dutch would be more involved.
Poland's problem wasn't France it was that the eastern nobility was willing to sell out national sovereignty to Russia and take foreign bribes to prevent losing some of their privileges in reforms. Then add in Prussia wanting to take Polish land to connect Koeningburg. Austria even wanted Poland to still exist as a buffer state between them and Russia.
You forgot at the beginning Baron von Steuben* whom Ben Franklin spirited away from France to help in the Continental Army war effort. He too did much to turn the forces from a ragtag army to a trained fighting force, and a squalid encampment into a proper military camp. The first thing he did was relocate the outhouses to the lowest point in the camp! Without Baron von Steuben the Revolution would almost certainly be lost. * Edit: von Steuben was wanted by Prussia and France on same-sex misconduct charges. Intimacy between men was a capital crime back then.
You seem to indicate that Louisiana was controlled by France during and after the American Revolution, it was not. In 1762, France ceeded it to Spain with the Treaty of Fountainebleau, in order to keep it from being lost to Great Britain. It was renamed Luisiana and would remain so until retroceeded to France in 1800, by the Treaty of San Ildefonso... just to be sold by Napoleon to the Americans lead by Jefferson (The Louisiana Purchase). As Spain already controlled it, France would not be able to sell it (10:52 in the video) to anyone, and as the Bourbon dynasty might not have fallen, Napoleon may not have risen to power and needed that money to battle the British.
Why is it that the British Army is always said to be the best when unreliable and small otherwise. Sure britan was on top currently but that had nothing to do with it's army.
Obviously, the colonies have great levels of sovereignty, no question there. Britain would've probably eventually won. Even with all this, the South simply doesn't have the industry or population to contend with the north, never mind the British Empire backing them. Especially since in this map, the British still have Virginia. Canada probably wouldn't rebel either and if they did, it'd be over quickly. Mexico and Texas would eventually start to side eye each other and I can see them fighting once the South begins to break from the pressure of a united north + Canada and the royal navy simply being too much. Britain would probably let Texas and Mexico off with a slap on the wrist. I could see them non ironically taking Yucatán as a "punishment" for Mexico. In reality to consolidate their hold on the Caribbean even more and to ensure they could deal with Mexico and Texas if they tried anything. Also I don't think India would be too much pressure necessarily, I already think it'd be much more divided between Portugal, the Dutch, France, and Britain. And for the most part it'd be the British East India Company (Which although has British backing, isn't nationalised yet.) which would be doing alot of the paying and fighting against France there. So yeah, even though the revolutionaries would get a head start, I think eventually once Britain mobilises and rallies the loyalists, they're going to break the Revolutionaries from the superior industry and population of their opponents. There I can see many diehards moving to Texas where they'd eventually grow to form a sorta strong Texas which stretches all of it's claimed land, as Mexico probably ends up eating itself eventually. In the future. I could see Mexico or Texas gaining a deep rivalry, as the Texans would believe that most of the Mexican land is misused and deserves to be theres. Mexico would believe it'd be there as they'd have a strong presence in regions. Whatever Central Powers like bloc forms, I could see one of them joining it and the other joining Britain just to get back at the other.
Britain winning the Reovutionary War most likely causes the land we think of today as the United States to remain fractured all the way till the modern day, colonialism would probably survive a lot longer and probably be a major part of world politics today. Technology most likely stagnates in the late 19th century and the advances that are mostly due to American innovation, tenacity, and investment never happen and so many things we consider common place today such as personal computers, smart phones, the internet, remain 50 or more years behind today's advancement if advanced at all.
France only regained the territory of Louisiana in the Napoleonic Wars. So in this timeline would have remained Spanish. Also rebellions in Latin America were due to Napoleon making Spain a puppet so Spain may have held on longer.
Without great power backing the southern rebellion could never win and even with there alliances and a great power it’s very unlikely they could win.on the continent itself the north has the overwhelming population and industry advantage combined with the overwhelming economic and naval might of the British the south would not stand a chance especially with slave revolts likely starting shortly after the rebellion
While interesting I feel like you're giving the British far more control and influence than they realistically could or would have, especially as they become more interested in India and thus letting the American colonies keep acting semi-independently as long as they don't start wars with European powers would likely become the predominant order. Also I'm not sure why the Northern States/Dominions still wouldn't get involved and stop the south via being Industrialized.
I respectfully disagree. The South would be too underdeveloped, and the Black population would likely be more supportive of the British in order to free their Southern brothers. It would be almost the same scenario, with the more industrialized North, possessing greater resources, ultimately overwhelming the South.
I honestly think this wouldn't happen. The British were overextended thanks to controlling such a large overseas empire. They never had the manpower to overwhelm the colonial rebels. Everytime the moved out side of their bases along the coast it always ended badly for them. The thing they could hope for after Lexington and Concord would be for Colonials to accept remaining in the empire but with defacto autonomy. Similar to the modern Commonwealth nations. Other that it would play out like just our timeline just lot longer with much more suffering and death.
What if Prince Leopold of Hohenzollern-Sigmaringen became king of Spain after the Franco-Prussian War? What if Sweden won the Finnish War and wasn’t neutral in the 19th century?
AFTER the Franco-Prussian war he probably would have been killed, in 1868 he *could* have been crowned, bu by 1871 the only King with any chance was Alfonso XII
Being a Canadian from Montreal I think that without the Revolution the US would evolve into a British Parliamentary system like Canada, Quebec would become like Louisiana, slavery would eventually be abolished, the south west would become Spanish, the Iroquois Confederacy would evolve into its own province. The US civil war would not take place. The resulting British North American Conferation would still evolve into an independent world power
The only reason the British Empire got rid of slavery was because when America succeeded from Britain, they took 90% of their slaves. Meaning Britain could take a moral stance without significant damage to its economy. With America staying in the imperial union, slavery would it still persistent, only being abolished later with compensation like want Brazil did.
Interesting video, the idea of America not succeeding in the Revolution has always struck me as one of those crossroads moments in history. Maybe it's just because I'm Canadain (born in Nova Scotia or New Scotland) but I've always wondered if Canada would have the chance to become a great power in its own right without America getting there first
The only way for America to stay loyal to Britain is if they got rid of all non-state taxes, allowed slavery, allowed settlement into the west, give representation, couldn’t draft soldiers, and allowed a better tolerated different religion. In my opinion. America would’ve had been the first Dominion.
“Are you saying they couldn’t have won the war without Lend-Lease!!!!1!!?? >:0”
If it was ww2, then yes
That 4% sure saved russia, didn’t it.
@@dylantrashmint8379 Ford raptor trucks coming in to fuck german butts certainly did
Not if George Vaushington was leading us.
@@dylantrashmint8379 according to soviet high command yes. Plus it was 50% of logistic trucks
The one error here is that in those times Louisiana was Spanish territory, ceded to Spain after the 7 years war, and it was like that until Napoleon siezed it after invading Spain to sell it to the US
100
"These rustics are so inept, they nearly take the honor out of victory."
"Nearly."
*Chuckles*
Pffft. More like a golden semicircle.
@@MonsieurDean crazyyy
Video suggestion: What if France succeeded in creating a settler colony in Algeria?
Would likely need to tweak Napoleon III’s rule and/or the Franco Prussian war.
A part 2 of this alternate timeline would be great!
Hamilton Part “I will send a fully armed battalion to remind you of my love da-da-da-dat-da”
Very entertaining video! I'd love to see this timeline continue.
Interestingly, without American independence, the Methodist movement in the colonies may have never become it's own Church. They largely left the colonial Anglican Church out of necessity and the neglect of English bishops to send more ministers to the colonies. If Britain becomes more involved in the colonies in this timeline, I'd believe that would include the state Church as well, maybe negating the largest practical reason for the creation of the Methodist Episcopal Church. Of course all that still may not be enough to overcome doctrinal tensions between the Established Church and the Methodists, since they were forced to be a dissenting faction by the late 18th cent.
Tbf it wouldn't be that difficult for Britain to allow religious freedom in the colonies like they did for Scotland
I doubt the patriots revolt in Canada would happen without the American revolution as it was inspired by the American revolution. Also, Canada is this timeline would have a distinctly higher ratio of French Canadians compared to English Canadians as loyalists would just stay in their original colonies especially in lower Canada where the English population would be a few thousand at most. This would in turn secure more influence and power to French Canadians and avoid the revolt. Also, I believe the British would just backstab the Iroquois when it would become beneficial to them. Similar situations happened to the Métis in Manitoba, the Zulu in South Africa or with King Philip’s War. The Iroquois where also hated by other indigenous tribes who would side with the British if the Iroquois became too powerful as the Iroquois tended to be vicious to other tribes. Except for those two critiques, I thoroughly enjoyed the video.
Have to disagree about the Quebec situation, at least partially.
Part of the reason for the American Revolution was restrictions on moving further west, which was intended to consolidate control rather than overstretching the British Empire. Part of this plan was to entice British settlers to move north in Quebec, accomplishing much the same result as had occurred in Louisiana otl.
Frankly, the whole revolution later on makes little sense, as the restrictions on western expansion would have lapsed by this time, and the civilised tribes would be under British rule. Slavery would presumably be abolished in line with historical British abolitionism, where slaveowners were compensated and the slaves were transported to Africa - historically the British did this in Sierra Leone, and the Americans similarly attempted to set up an African-American settler state in Liberia. This would do much to assuage the fears of the Southerners spurred on by Haiti and the events therein.
I agree with your assessment about the Iroquois - while the Iroquois Confederation would exist for a time, the British would obviously move further west. There was no notion of it existing beyond the time when it was useful.
Solid points. As mentioned in the video, the Iroquois’ survival was simply a tool to create a more interesting scenario
@@whitehawk4099 The vast majority of emancipated slaves in the British Empire were not transported back to Sierra Leone after Emancipation, and repatriation was not official imperial policy. The descendants of these enslaved people still live in the English-speaking Caribbean.
@@gemmeldrakes2758 No, but enough were that it, combined with historical plans for repatriation, notably held by Abraham Lincoln, would likely be enacted to a greater extent in the American colonies. There was great fear there due to the Haitian Revolution and its consequences, and in this scenario those colonies likely would have gained responsible government by that time.
@@whitehawk4099 But I doubt there would be a successful Haitian Revolution in this timeline. Since there is no French revolution to disrupt the Empire so the slave rebellion would probably have been put down.
An Iroquois protracted under the British is exciting, and having an Industrial Anglican America might been a concept for some alternate historians. Having the Iroquois industrialize is an interesting idea, for most people have never discussed that possibility, and this something needs to be explored in a future alternate history video. This is a terrific video, Mr. US of Z. I like the historical lessons you did and remade into this historical worldbuilding. You deserve more likes and subscribers for this video and respect and recognition for your effort in these videos. I really mean it!
10:05 as if the English themselves weren't defined by individualism, regardless of their form of government.
We need a part two please
Garibaldi? He was born in 1807, why would he be a wild card for something taking place 30 years before his birth?
@@americanuscaesar it says wild card like garabaldi obviously not himself
Ah that was a gaff. I misread an old thing I wrote and thought Washington sent a letter asking Garibaldi to train the Colonial Army, but it was actually Lincoln who asked him to train the Union Army. That was a silly mistake that I should’ve spotted.
Apparently in possession of time travel capability, he becomes a wild card in _every_ alternate history scenario! 😂
Video idea what if Napoleon was born in America
@@votetheodore2048 maybe Napoleon’s family decided to move to America instead of living in Corsica after France takes it over?
@@votetheodore2048 Napoleon dies in America and never does anything of note. The end.
@@mikeplayz4601 that's Exactly what I'm thinking
What if napoleon was russian
@@votetheodore2048 how about instead he was exiled to america
Make a Part Two 🙏🏻🙏🏻
great video, it's always something that has fascinated me, especially as a Canadian
As I recall, Japan initially *didn’t* preserve its traditional self all that much initially, but rather went pretty much all in on westernization, only much later on being subject to revivalism.
Also side note, the Iroquois confederacy core was in what is today upstate New York, not in the western Great Lakes, that was part of their short lived empire.
Tesla would end up creating 2-legged mechs and electric ray weapons by 1900.
Something-Britannica, I think it's called?
Lafayette joined the American cause in 1777, a full year before France joined the war. He was there as a foreign volunteer, not as a representative of his government.
Just my two cents: the American Revolution was the first of its kind. Sure, there were Medieval and Renaissance republics (Venice, Novgorod, United Provinces) but none of them were erected following the successful throwing off the joke of a monarchy. The American Revolution virtually bisected the Anglo-Saxon civilization.
That doesn’t just “happen.” There’s no evidence in my mind that would allude to widespread Spanish American revolutions (despite the tensions) without the American and French Revolutions as an example. And without the American Revolution-for reasons you mentioned and reasons you left out-there would be no reason, and no fertile ground for a French Revolution at all. Thereby, no Napoleon, and thereby, no Spanish breakaway republics.
North and South America would be unrecognizable by 2024, possibly with 5-15 native nation states, 3-4 British Dominions, 3-4 Spanish Viceroyalties, +Brazil.
The Americas would remain a backwater compared to the old world.
monarchy almost 100% survives into the present day throughout the old world
Video Suggestion: What if Operation Big Pines succeeded (a.k.a. The 1982 Lebanon War).
What if the British gave equal representation to the Colonies before things got violent?
Video idea: What jf Teddy Roosevelt was transported to our time from 1912 and entered the current election
I felt like when you chose the more interesting route with a Native American protectorate state thing for the Iroquois I felt that maybe the most realistic path would be the “better” path to go.
Also would love to either see a longer video seeing how the war ends, and the rest of history realistically goes until there can’t be anymore predicted.
Other than that very good video!
Idea guys: What if Napoleón was born in italy proper (Specifically Naples)
This is actually very interesting. I want this now.
Sounds interesting
He was born in Italy, Corsica was annexed by France by Louis XV
No more Ron Paul? 😢
6:49 Vermont mentioned let’s go!!!🥳🥳🥳
What If DoggerLand still existed today
@planetarystargazer definitely do this one
Britain would be frozen without the North Atlantic current
Defintely want to see this continued. Santa Anna and Texas allying in this timeline is wild and intriguing 😂
Santa Anna is always such an interesting wild card, even in our own history where his allegiances shifted like the sands.
7:32
So the territories you've granted to the Iroquois are actually held by other British allies that formed the socalled "Northwest Confederacy" (Shawnee, Lenape, Miami, and others) and would probably react very poorly to the take over. The Iroquois would have probably held their lands in upstate NY, though maybe not as the Iroquois actually split in half over British vs American support
As a result some of the nations within the Iroquois Confederacy would definitely have land while others would lose it
The Northwest Confederacy was plurality Cherokee and Iroquois, but for the sake of simplicity I used the Iroquois as the poster child for the state given their good relations to the British, and the fact that they were the first signatories of the Detroit letter. I’m also aware of the earlier Iroquois Confederacy along Lake Eerie, from which the Iroquois migrated to modern day Michigan and Wisconsin.
ooh instead of the position of governors I can see dukedoms replacing the office of governors in this timeline
I like to see 1 or 2 follow up videos of this timeline. What if The Independent States of America & its allies won or lost its war for independence?
Do what if Spain kept the Louisiana territory
Great scenario. I’m wondering what sparked the “rebellions” in Upper and Lower Canada in the 1830’s? As a Canadian, I don’t think of it as a time when there was too much discussion of independence - the population overall was still quite low, particularly in Upper Canada (Ontario). Certainly some of the bigger tensions could have been the tension between the French Canadians in Lower Canada, of course, and their British overlords. Thats always been an historical oddity - Quebec retaining its uniquely French culture despite being under ostensibly Anglo rule for over 3 centuries.
This is one of My favorite what ifs! Thanks For this! Hearth please! Make it a series please ❤❤❤❤❤
I think the British would try to civilize (no im not putting in quotations) the Iroquois by having them build trading and industrial cities on the Great lakes coast and would send Anglican bishops and ministers into Iroquois lands. Creating a class of Ethnically mix Anglo-Iroquois class of priests and aristocracy ruling over a predominantly native population through Anglo-Native mix chieftains, aristocrats, and clergy, gradually Anglicizing the Iroquois.
Not dissimilar to the situation in Mexico or Peru
@@DeanMonsieur it didn't develop in our timeline but could of with this timelines further integration of native Americans among the British.
Leading to a domino affect, or rather a new precedence of miscegenation policies to assimilate new native lands.
So what you’re saying is when America actually was an English colony from 1607-1776 they weren’t all very English/Anglican-Protestant. But somehow 20 years after a war which divided the nation (temporarily in this timeline not permanent) they all suddenly become homogeneous and all the states become 1 generic Anglican English north and 2 generic Scot’s Methodists south. With the real history of religion in this region with this alt history trajectory I still don’t see it being very homogeneous maybe just closer in culture/Germanic Protestantism. Even if England combined it into one dominion or kingdom like an Ireland/Canada/or a wales it still would have varying local populations like irl Ireland/England/Australia/SA/etc… The only main difference I see is no republicanism but the whigs (anti monarchy/constitutional monarchy party) would still be dominant like irl as they’re still in England today. Milder mass immigrations (yes they still occur as so many people left the old world for ANY new world nation not just US) and more English/British culture.
Video idea what if the Berlin Wall never fell
Ooooo ye and I would get Maryland
Where do you get the (presumably royalty-free) classical recordings you use for your videos?
Friedrich Wilhelm August Heinrich Ferdinand von Steuben Trained Washington's troops at valley forge in 1777.
Me when the when. When the when Cascadia When the when. Revolution in Murcia, I mean Murica
What do you think this idea for a future alternate history scenario: What if the death and exile of Cathrine Aragon resulted a war between the Kingdom of England under the House of Tudor and the Holy Roman Empire under Haspburg Dynasty? What this war was caused a rumor that Herny VIII had poisoned Catherine and what if the rumors were true? What do you think of that idea, Mr. US of Z? What are your thoughts, comments, and opinions about this idea?
What if Russia had colonies
Man when the british gets into a war in this timeline the enemies are absolutely cooked
Reminds me of Irokesenland from Roses, Tulips, and Liberty
Consider lowering the volume of the background music. It's distracting and hard to hear the narration.
In the long run, it did.
Today we’re more akin to the British and Europe than ourselves.
10:38 Wasn't Louisiana already Spanish at that time?
A note id like to add is since america was were prisoners were sent we could see a scramble for Australia, another thing is that Poland might still exist since the leader at the time was making a liberal constitution and without France being France there could still be a Poland and there's also still a Dutch south Africa so if we some how have a scramble for Africa the Dutch would be more involved.
Poland's problem wasn't France it was that the eastern nobility was willing to sell out national sovereignty to Russia and take foreign bribes to prevent losing some of their privileges in reforms. Then add in Prussia wanting to take Polish land to connect Koeningburg. Austria even wanted Poland to still exist as a buffer state between them and Russia.
What if Mexico won the Mexican American war?
Spain buying Louisiana they where even more broke than the french
Hahaha God that's hilarious given how much mineral wealth their territories have in just North America alone.
Canada wasn't one united colony please fix this
Quick question what happened to Mr Z? Also idea for video what if the Dutch discovered gold in Western Australia in the 1600s
What if the US conquered Canada in 1812 and got a seat at the Vienna Congress?
Basically if the American Revolution failed/never happened, what we call Canada would be a bigger country today.
You forgot at the beginning Baron von Steuben* whom Ben Franklin spirited away from France to help in the Continental Army war effort. He too did much to turn the forces from a ragtag army to a trained fighting force, and a squalid encampment into a proper military camp. The first thing he did was relocate the outhouses to the lowest point in the camp! Without Baron von Steuben the Revolution would almost certainly be lost.
* Edit: von Steuben was wanted by Prussia and France on same-sex misconduct charges. Intimacy between men was a capital crime back then.
You seem to indicate that Louisiana was controlled by France during and after the American Revolution, it was not. In 1762, France ceeded it to Spain with the Treaty of Fountainebleau, in order to keep it from being lost to Great Britain. It was renamed Luisiana and would remain so until retroceeded to France in 1800, by the Treaty of San Ildefonso... just to be sold by Napoleon to the Americans lead by Jefferson (The Louisiana Purchase). As Spain already controlled it, France would not be able to sell it (10:52 in the video) to anyone, and as the Bourbon dynasty might not have fallen, Napoleon may not have risen to power and needed that money to battle the British.
This is a nightmare
Why is it that the British Army is always said to be the best when unreliable and small otherwise.
Sure britan was on top currently but that had nothing to do with it's army.
So you're saying that we needed money and guns, and half a chance?
Obviously, the colonies have great levels of sovereignty, no question there.
Britain would've probably eventually won.
Even with all this, the South simply doesn't have the industry or population to contend with the north, never mind the British Empire backing them.
Especially since in this map, the British still have Virginia.
Canada probably wouldn't rebel either and if they did, it'd be over quickly.
Mexico and Texas would eventually start to side eye each other and I can see them fighting once the South begins to break from the pressure of a united north + Canada and the royal navy simply being too much.
Britain would probably let Texas and Mexico off with a slap on the wrist.
I could see them non ironically taking Yucatán as a "punishment" for Mexico. In reality to consolidate their hold on the Caribbean even more and to ensure they could deal with Mexico and Texas if they tried anything.
Also I don't think India would be too much pressure necessarily, I already think it'd be much more divided between Portugal, the Dutch, France, and Britain. And for the most part it'd be the British East India Company (Which although has British backing, isn't nationalised yet.) which would be doing alot of the paying and fighting against France there.
So yeah, even though the revolutionaries would get a head start, I think eventually once Britain mobilises and rallies the loyalists, they're going to break the Revolutionaries from the superior industry and population of their opponents.
There I can see many diehards moving to Texas where they'd eventually grow to form a sorta strong Texas which stretches all of it's claimed land, as Mexico probably ends up eating itself eventually.
In the future.
I could see Mexico or Texas gaining a deep rivalry, as the Texans would believe that most of the Mexican land is misused and deserves to be theres.
Mexico would believe it'd be there as they'd have a strong presence in regions.
Whatever Central Powers like bloc forms, I could see one of them joining it and the other joining Britain just to get back at the other.
This might be a kinda dumb scenario but could you do what if France invaded England during the American war for independence
The horror! The Knights of the Golden Circle rejoice at the prospect of a great slave-owning state, mere few inches away from their grasp!😨
Britain winning the Reovutionary War most likely causes the land we think of today as the United States to remain fractured all the way till the modern day, colonialism would probably survive a lot longer and probably be a major part of world politics today. Technology most likely stagnates in the late 19th century and the advances that are mostly due to American innovation, tenacity, and investment never happen and so many things we consider common place today such as personal computers, smart phones, the internet, remain 50 or more years behind today's advancement if advanced at all.
France only regained the territory of Louisiana in the Napoleonic Wars. So in this timeline would have remained Spanish. Also rebellions in Latin America were due to Napoleon making Spain a puppet so Spain may have held on longer.
Without great power backing the southern rebellion could never win and even with there alliances and a great power it’s very unlikely they could win.on the continent itself the north has the overwhelming population and industry advantage combined with the overwhelming economic and naval might of the British the south would not stand a chance especially with slave revolts likely starting shortly after the rebellion
I genuinely think America would be better off if they kept the British political system
While interesting I feel like you're giving the British far more control and influence than they realistically could or would have, especially as they become more interested in India and thus letting the American colonies keep acting semi-independently as long as they don't start wars with European powers would likely become the predominant order.
Also I'm not sure why the Northern States/Dominions still wouldn't get involved and stop the south via being Industrialized.
I respectfully disagree. The South would be too underdeveloped, and the Black population would likely be more supportive of the British in order to free their Southern brothers. It would be almost the same scenario, with the more industrialized North, possessing greater resources, ultimately overwhelming the South.
I honestly think this wouldn't happen. The British were overextended thanks to controlling such a large overseas empire. They never had the manpower to overwhelm the colonial rebels. Everytime the moved out side of their bases along the coast it always ended badly for them. The thing they could hope for after Lexington and Concord would be for Colonials to accept remaining in the empire but with defacto autonomy. Similar to the modern Commonwealth nations. Other that it would play out like just our timeline just lot longer with much more suffering and death.
Rule Britannia forever!!!!!
All hail Britannia!
I just don't see the iraquios surviving
What if Prince Leopold of Hohenzollern-Sigmaringen became king of Spain after the Franco-Prussian War?
What if Sweden won the Finnish War and wasn’t neutral in the 19th century?
He'd probably give up in disgust eventually and return home
AFTER the Franco-Prussian war he probably would have been killed, in 1868 he *could* have been crowned, bu by 1871 the only King with any chance was Alfonso XII
Im so glad we didnt stay another UK....
And subscribe
Being a Canadian from Montreal I think that without the Revolution the US would evolve into a British Parliamentary system like Canada, Quebec would become like Louisiana, slavery would eventually be abolished, the south west would become Spanish, the Iroquois Confederacy would evolve into its own province. The US civil war would not take place. The resulting British North American Conferation would still evolve into an independent world power
red
LONG LIVE THE UK! Hope that they defeat the southtern rebels🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧
The only reason the British Empire got rid of slavery was because when America succeeded from Britain, they took 90% of their slaves. Meaning Britain could take a moral stance without significant damage to its economy. With America staying in the imperial union, slavery would it still persistent, only being abolished later with compensation like want Brazil did.
@@roseonfire-f9z can you provide a source for your statement?
What if the south has not attacked Fort Sumpter?
g
It can be nice to see french naval victories against the british.
Idea: What if nikolai bukharin led the ussr
Sup
Interesting video, the idea of America not succeeding in the Revolution has always struck me as one of those crossroads moments in history.
Maybe it's just because I'm Canadain (born in Nova Scotia or New Scotland) but I've always wondered if Canada would have the chance to become a great power in its own right without America getting there first
Simplest answer is no, probably not. Not enough population and not enough good land.
if they expanded south I think a bit, bit its the missisippi river that makes america the superpower it is today and canada couldnt have that
The only way for America to stay loyal to Britain is if they got rid of all non-state taxes, allowed slavery, allowed settlement into the west, give representation, couldn’t draft soldiers, and allowed a better tolerated different religion. In my opinion. America would’ve had been the first Dominion.
Best timeline, would've been the best outcome for Native Americans.
Scenario 1776 world wide. Post successful American revolution The American Republic aids Napoleon as a fellow Republic against the brits.
248 views in 28 minutes, bro fell off
Rip