Two devastating earthquakes, a volcanic eruption, riots burning the city, and a plague all happening within the same guy's rule feels like the universe just really hated that guy in particular. I'm surprised he didn't get struck by lightning or a meteor.
well, he did actually get the plague. like, coma deathbed will almost certainly die plague. but he lived and returned to ruling. its very possible he just dies in the middle of the plague in an alternate reality.
This is why I hate when people say Justinian was anything over than an S tier emperor. He still temporarily reunited the Empire despite all of this because not only was he brilliant but he surrounded himself with other brilliant people. People will say he was bad because he set the empire up for failure down the line (because of course he should’ve known the disunited arabs would’ve gone berserk) yet will excuse the Bulgar Slayer for more blatantly doing so because how could he have known the Turks would’ve gone berserk
There are lots of great Blackadder quotes. I like the one about the *great, infallible system of deterrence* which failed only because it was absolute bollocks.
In crasso sum, omnes sciunt Sciunt me ubi ninguit, ego prolabebantur et adligat Nescio nihil nil, non glaciem IRCA, non sum frigidus Quadraginta millia subs somethin aut sic, nuntiatum est Sum in mea prima et haec ne ultima quidem forma Pulsaverunt me, sed tamen, pedes, pavimentum inveniunt Ivi e vivis cubiculis recta ad venditionem-e Turonensis Pugna vitae est, sed fiducia, paratus sum ad bellum Woah-oh-oh Sic fama Woah-oh-oh Fatendum est quomodo fabula In crasso sum, omnes sciunt Sciunt me ubi ninguit, ego prolabebantur et adligat Nescio nihil nil, non glaciem IRCA, non sum frigidus Quadraginta millia subs somethin aut sic, nuntiatum est A velo ad anulum, ad calamum, ad regem Ubi est corona mea? Hoc mihi bling Semper drama cum tinniant Ecce, credo, si videro in corde meo Frangit per laquearia, Im 'causa reachin' pro astra Woah-oh-oh Sic fama Woah-oh-oh Fatendum est quomodo fabula In crasso sum, omnes sciunt Sciunt me ubi ningit, ego skied et adligat (woo) Nescio nihil nil, non glaciem IRCA, non sum frigidus Quadraginta millia subs somethin aut sic, nuntiatum est
The problem for Carthage is that the Romans during this period of time took war very personally. For them it was either total victory or total defeat. Rarely would they sue for peace unless it was absolutely necessary. Had Rome possessed a less extreme culture which would allow them to sue for peace after their 3 defeats, as if they believed that war was no longer worth it then it is possible for Carthage to benefit from the Punic wars. Perhaps they would have survived as a society longer.
Or if Hannibal listened to his top generals, like Marhabal and marched on Rome after Cannae. He didn't heed their advice and lost the war. Yes, Rome could of been sacked because the Gauls did it before the Punic Wars, but was paid a large tribute to leave the city. Also, the book Saturnalia by Macrobius states that after Cannae Rome was in such bad shape that they had to purchase and recruit slaves from their citizens to build up the manpower for their army. So, Hannibal missed out on a golden opportunity to lay Seige to Rome after Cannae. But, you have to give it to the Romans they went all out in warfare, they had a victory or death mindset.
In that case, the bigger result is Rome not being a massive Empire, and Carthage not being destroyed, but allowed to change and evolve, or fall like a normal state.
@@sterlingsimmons2212 >Or if Hannibal listened to his top generals, like Marhabal and marched on Rome after Cannae. To do what? Stare at the walls menacingly until his supplies run out?
@090giver090 The Servian Walls were probably a C or B for city defensive walls at best. That's why Rome had to upgrade to the Aurelian walls, which were a major upgrade. But, given that the Servian walls which were used when the Gauls sacked the city, was still used as protection during the Punic Wars. It's safe to say Rome was in serious trouble if Hannibal did decide to lay siege to the city.
@@sterlingsimmons2212 @sterlingsimmons2212 They did repair and upgraded the Severian wall after the Brennus, so walls of late III century BC were not the same as in early IV century. Although not as impressive as walls of Carthage, they still pose an obstacle for an army with zero siege equipment (like Hannibal's army). And considering that chances of southern Italian cities changing allegiance would be smaller without Hannibal's army present, there is a big chance that sieging army would be sandwiched between city garrison (that consisted not only of pressed slaves and emergency recruits but also of at least two legions left there before Cannae) and a new latin/italic army recruited in hinterland. Marhabal's plan was a typical high risk - high yield gamble. During 3rd War romans actually did the same - they eliminated last Carthaginian field armies and subjugated last Punic cities still allied to Carthage and only then started sieging the Carthage itself.
You know while I agree with the belief that the Viking wouldn't colonize America, I still think that Viking assimilation would be a fascinating scenario. The Viking were just as much into trading as they were into raiding so it wouldn't be much of a stretch for them to turn newfoundland into a trading hub for them to exchange goods with the native Americans. If that happened, then you would get effectively a Scandinavian version of the Columbian exchange with both groups getting access to the others flora, fauna, technology and culture changing both societies radically. Add in the possibly of six centuries of intermingling between the two groups resulting in the Americans gaining herd immunity to the European diseases that wiped them out in the OTL and the chances of native American civilization fending off colonization becomes much higher. Well at least that's my POV what do you think?
Very logical. Vinland doesn't need to become an empire to have potentially huge impacts. Think about how much spanish horses changed native nations. Now those same horses arrived hundreds of years earlier. Even that by itself is huge.
I think this video also vastly undersells how valuable beaver pelts were. Combine french-canadian style fur trapping with the arctic walrus ivory trade and there is a lot of potential for a norse foothold to expand into a very interesting kind of colonization and exchange.
The OTL actually had this happen. The viking groups that made it to America before Spain did eventually assimilated with the local natives. If you ever heard of Canada's "blue-eyed natives," it is theorized that they are descendants of vikings and natives intermingling. However they're more of an isolated phenomenon. What ultimately kills this scenario IMO is the scale required for what you're proposing. Granting heard immunity to the entirety of North America would basically require ALL of the vikings moving to Vinland at the same time, and even then the result you're asking for still probably wouldn't happen. Not only that but whoever they intermingled with would probably determine their allegiances in the regional conflicts, which would ultimately restrict how far their influence would spread. So it's a cool concept that happened in real life, but was never going to lead to the results you're hoping for IMO.
I'm still curious about what if Ned Kelly's supposed coup succeeded? Victorian police theorized his plan was to start an armed uprising, calling back to Eureka Springs, and eliminated a majority of the VC police forces with the planned train accident.
Just throwing it out there: an alternate history where Santa is real would be insane. How would the existence of a magical, immortal man at the North Pole affect human history from the Victorian Era onwards? If I had to guess, a guy dressed in red giving out free stuff would be a major concern for the United States throughout the Cold War. The CIA would definitely try to install an elf junta at the North Pole in this timeline.
Santa just means saint and as you might have guessed Saint Nicholas is in fact a real person he just didnt look like you may think en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_Nicholas
I have one problem with Justinianian's take: He did reunite the Roman empire, by conquering Rome and Italy, which immediately collapsed after his death. And even so, it wasn't "reunification", but a reconquest of lands formerly held
His wife was an ex-hooker, they couldnt have kids, she died of cancer, he was ill of black death. And still made so much and lived a happy marriage. I had never realuzed it, Justanian was at the same time the most unfortunate yet fortunate king ever.
So fun fact about the gun powder plot.....sort of. In the 2000s, a TV show hosted by Richard Hammond built a moke house of Lords from the time put dummies in it and blew it up. The show is on UA-cam if anyone wants to watch it
9:56 & 10:26 That divide actually goes *way* deeper. According to most linguists, those aren’t 30-40 dialects of Italian, those are about 12 completely *different languages* with their own dialects. They’re just called dialects of Italian because it makes it easier to look past regional divides when you pretend they’re the same language, which made Italian unification a lot easier to maintain. Modern Italian is based on the Tuscan Language (not to be confused with Etruscan), because a lot of popular literature came from Florence, and was thus written in it.
@@Dont14-r4k Justinian was very much a 2nd Augustus in this regard, he was amazing at finding the best people to delegate the most important jobs to instead of just nepotism
@@johnsupergeil7098 It’s why he was so good, the combination of Him, Belisarius and Theodora was incredible. Honestly, we need a well done film on his reign, he’s got one of the most interesting ones for sure.
I love the fact that the plot was only uncovered because one of the plotters sent a letter to their relative telling them not to go near Parliament on the 5th of November.
@@shivill2236 ...Jesus, was it actually? Guess incompetence really can ruin the best laid of plans. Oh well, the movie and comic are still cool, so who cares?
@@aidangordon2713 Yeah someone in the plot sent a letter to a member of parliament saying "maybe don't go in tomorrow" to which they sent the letter to the spy master (guy who investigates plots) and they investigated the building eventually finding the gun powder and Guy Fawkes.
It's amusing how this guy who really just wanted to commit mass terrorism in the implementing a specific religious government has become idolized into a freedom fighter.
Rather than a scenario positing "X tech never gets invented", I like to toy with 2 variants... "What if X tech came later", and "What if X tech was discovered by X first". Tends to lead to much more plausible scenarios, and be more fun to explore overall.
I think it’s a reference to Grand Budapest Hotel, actually- A character in that movie has a mexico-shaped birthmark on her cheek. AFAIK althisthub has portrayed gorby like that for a long time, nothing new
Idk if it’s been covered in pt 1, but: What if Hitler never invaded Russia? It’s stupid, because that was literally all Hitler wanted to do. To make him not invade Russia would require a rethinking of all Hitler’s goals, and then it really isn’t the same Hitler, so it’s meaningless.
Think the Only scenario that would have made a lick of sense, (Very Very optimistic outlook), is that France and Britain took Hitlers call against Communism seriously and did decide to enter the negotiation table immediately instead of waiting till Poland got invaded, to create an Anti-communist European block, It most likely never would've happened as both Britain and France were absolutely spent and still recovering from the first War, and it would've taken Quite a lot to make them decide the USSR needed intervention and containment
the realistic scenario isn't a not, it's just that it's delayed until Russia invades German territory. Which holy hell that would have been a disaster considering Russian's... entire military doctrine. Into the teeth of a Germany with stable supply lines with dysfunctional logistics. Long story short though it follows the same route as the sealion scenario from this channel and the US looks at two german cities and says 'delet this'
@zacharymccann6632 he did already made a video on this but I agree, if you want a Germany who doesn’t invade the Soviets, it is a completely different Germany and WW2. They used the Slavs and Jews as a focal point for their aspirations and plans. With this reason gone, then their whole party idea falls apart.
I will say about Franz Ferdinand surviving assassination, a world where WW1 starts in 1914 looks very different tham one where it starts in 1924 or 1904. Which might make neat video ideas.
I think the biggest change would be advancement in Eletronics and Radio Technology but the radio part is a big strech because a lot of the technology which the 1924 is known for, was because WW1. Without WW1, the world, ironically, would be set back A LOT technology wise, the war is really one of those few things that pushes man kind to actually make the world a better place while trying to kill each other as efficiantly as possible. But a 1904 WW1 could be very interesting because it would be a bigger Franco-Prussian War due to how the two era's technology are so simmilar safe from the wide adoption of single shot metallic cartridges rifles, and probably a lack of machine gun- Ok now that I think about it, 1904 WW1 would be just an more modern Napoleonic War rather than what we would consider WW1 with Trench Warfare, Planes, Tanks and Machine Guns. I say this because Machine guns really became imporant around 1910s, which is why they were so deadly and so bad in hindsight, because they were cutting edge technology really only seen in colonial grounds.
@@alanpennie8013 In 1905? Unless Germany manages to actually get to Paris it gets steamrolled hard. Almost 1/2 of German ammunition production is credited to Haber-Bosch process which was invented in 1908. Without it Germany would have massive fertilizer shortages (and as a result food shortages) not by year 4, but next year. And unlike our timeline, ammo shortages wouldn't be resolved, because it couldn't be solved without fertilizers import. Basically, actual war until Christmas
@ALE199-itaThe Boer War had already given the template for 1914. What would be very different in 1905 was that Russia was in chaos after the disasters against Japan.
@@davidevans3822 I think Terence Zuber argued in one of his articles that Russia was less affected by the revolution of 1905 than is often thought. The army remained reliable very much unlike 1917.
It's great to see my home of newfoundland mentioned in your video, I see so many people overlook our viking settlement on the island, thank you and merry Christmas
Another thing to consider with Justinian's attempt to reunify Rome with the west... Imagine the perception from those living in the west? Like you said, Rome's west only officially fell less than a century ago, those Germanic peoples still saw themselves as Roman, it's not like they stopped being Roman as soon as a Goth took over. Rome had plenty of emperors from all over at that point from Gaul, Thrace, Africa... One person explained it like this that when Belisarius came and the people saw soldiers carrying the banner of Rome coming as conquerers it helped to alienate them and reinforced this idea that the former Western Empire was no longer truly Roman.
Furthermore, the Gothic wars and Belisarius' conquests basically killed off what was left of Roman urbanism. The Ostragoths waltzing into the Italian peninsula did *far* less damage to the vestigial Roman institutions, economics and urbanism than the Roman "reconquest" of Italy. So, in a sense, while Justinian "reunified" the empire on paper, in practice Italy had never been less Roman under Byzantine suzerainty.
13:50 - Yeah, sadly there was no way to avoid WW1. The only thing this would is delay the inevitable by a few years to maybe a decade or two if were being generous.
Just having WW I break out in 1934 instead of 1914 brings it’s own interesting butterfly effect, though. Would the U.S. have the resources or the will to join a war that broke out in the midst of the dust bowl? Would more advanced aviation technology allow for the type of trench warfare that featured so predominately during our timelines’s version of WWI? Etc.
@@wornplatypus4781 Thats not how technology works, and while yes it was a major driver for the development of technology it is not like the world would be stagnant for 20 years in terms of technology
1. There were ways. Like if Britain didn't wait until invasion of Belgium happened, and provided ultimatum to Germans to stop immediately. Also German parliament didn't approve the war. 2. There were ways to make the war faster and less bloody. Like if Entente agreed on Bulgaria demands and Bulgaria joined Entente side, which would mean much better situation for Serbia and Romania later. No occupation, no exile to Corfu, no concentration camps on Serbian territory. Ottoman Empire also wasn't predetermined to join the Central powers, it had huge monetary debt to England and France, so they could join the Entente as form of payment. Having access to Bosphorus straits would mean much easier transportation of ammo, guns and other things that Russia needed to hold the front, also absence of Caucasus front would help. 3. If the war happened later, with mass introduction of cars, armored cars and maybe tanks to the armies. It also would be shorter and less bloody. It won't be a war for survival like WW2, because fascism and Nazism would not born yet
Just because it seems unlikely in reality does not make it so, it is very much possible that without a Strong catalyst like the Assassination of Archduke Ferdinand that if the war were to still occur the nature and scale of it as well as timeframe could be monstrously different not mentioning the difference in culture prior and after.
Carthage winning would have required two things (at least). -No corvid beak (the invention that allowed lousy Roman ships to lock down Carthage’s ships and turn naval warfare into land-ish battles). -no Fabius (as in he dies or is exiled before Hannibal arrives), because without scorched earth tactics Hannibal had a real shot. Realistically Rome was extremely flexible, innovative, and terrifyingly aggressive. Carthage probably would have lost in the long run, but I think those two things allow a window for Carthage to break Rome.
I think the thing that Carthage could do is break Rome long enough for someone else to emerge as a competitor, like in Gaul. Carthage, long-term, would not be able to do what Rome did and make an empire, but its weakening of Rome could 100% have pretty enormous consequences.
@ Rome was eventually broken enough that it couldn’t rebuild, in our timeline. There wasn’t anyone that took their place. I think Carthage may have been able to do the same thing, but I agree they wouldn’t have replaced Rome. If Rome couldn’t rest the seas from Carthage (which I don’t think would have happed without the beak) they would have been weakened by lower trade and connectivity with allies and vassal states. They would have also been starved for resources. Hannibal without Fabius would’ve had a solid shot at taking or breaking the city of Rome, especially without Roman naval supremacy, and with Carthage reinforcing and resupplying the expeditionary force. I could have this all wrong, but that’s how I see things.
25:05 as a rubik's cube nerd I can't stress this enough The Cube was invented multiple times, heck stuff like the cube that isn't the traditional 3x3 were invented multiple times before the cube. The most popular example is with the pyraminx as it was invented before the cube but was patented after the cube
To elaborate on the "X never falls" section (or that whole genre of alternate history), it is near impossible to predict alternate histories on that scale. We have no way of guessing which decisive figures would rise and fall, what social trends would emerge or decline, after any real length of time after a point of divergence. People in an alternate timeline hypothesising about our own would have no way of predicting things like Caesar's rise or a storm destroying a fleet. There are too many variables to consider, and too many events that happen out of nowhere that change the course of history. The whole thought exercise should be taken on a scale of plausibility and contrivance. There are more-likely and less-likely scenarios, but after a while everything becomes fiction. It's the nature of the hobby.
I don't know if that is applicable anymore. The vast interconnectedness of the world would be in comprehensible to any nation before the 20th century. Everyone depends on each other in a way that has never existed; downturns in one country can have dramatic impacts on others. Most importantly, nations (major ones anyway) don't wage war with each other constantly as has been done all throughout history. The Russian and Ukrainian war is the first peer to peer conflict in 70 years. That would be completely unheard of 200 years ago. However, that doesn't mean revolutions and conquests are not possible. We live in a time where most of the population has not experienced and does not understand war, so who knows.
@@Wumbotron5000 That's Angela Merkel's logic and it doesn't hold. If one government is dead set on achieving a goal there's nothing stopping the leader from going through with it no matter how self destructive. Interconnectedness is also a weakness in that propaganda, subterfuge and espionage are far easier to carry out than ever before. You can take down a power plant from the other side of the world, radicalise populations with misinformation or send confidential documents faster than anyone can stop. Sure bringing down an Empire will harm your own trade but if that collapse results in your own nation eventually getting ahead it all the short term pain might be worth it. Or maybe that's what the leaders believe before they do something stupid.
Honestly, I think people just get too caught up in the sauce of "what is the most realistic scenario" and the butterfly effect to realize that alternate history is just fiction, and fiction should be fun and not try to get too boggled down with the details of it all.
exactly! i don't understand the point of calling alternate history scenarios "dumb" when this entire channel is based on dumb scenarios where the vast majority of the videos hinge on the impossible happening. i mean this guy LITERALLY makes videos like "what if north africa actually got a lot of rain and wasn't a dessert?" and "what if landmasses were completely different england wasn't actually an island?". like.. dude.. if weather patterns and fault lines can be changed on a whim, i'm sure you can think of a scenario where carthage comes out on top. 😆
Leviathan is great alternative history (for kids) because of this. Focusing on giant robots vs big genetically modified whale airships is just fantastic
While I don't disagree, the problem with making fiction fun and ignoring the realistic circumstances is that it just becomes wish fulfillment. Like in the case of werhaboos trying to come up with random bs for how Germany could have won ww2.
The problem is when alternate histories based upon unrealistic scenarios are popularized without the proper context. Similarly, an individual can essentially delude themselves independently into having a poor understanding of the world around them and of its past if they focus on their enthusiasm for the fiction, without sufficient deference to the facts. There needs to be firm mental separation between said fiction and the individual's understanding of actual history. There is nothing inherently problematic about unrealistic alternate histories as a storytelling device. However, when readers (or writers, for that matter) use those unrealistic scenarios to supplant actual understanding of history, then it can have a problematic effect.
22:50, I do have to agree with this since the chemistry/biology/physics underlying every invention exist regardless of the brilliant minds that discover and/or make such principles useful. Yes there are certain inventions that could remain science fiction, nukes probably being the biggest since it's so enormously expensive to refine bomb capable elements... but even if no one ever built a nuclear explosive device we still would almost certainly have nuclear reactors both for research and power generation by alternate today with someone realizing the big kabooms fission and fusion could create.
Rather than Vikings attempting complete colonial domination of North America, the more interesting question is what if they had just stuck around? If they had built a few towns, and maintained Newfoundland and Labroador as a trading ports for a few centuries this would dramatically shift future colonialist efforts. Greater and earlier trade with native populations would make these peoples more resistant to disease. Even a slightly more well armed, and well organized native resistance (Who have potentially been warring with their new viking neighbors for generations) would also make colonial efforts more difficult. I don't know if that would be a large enough shift to make something like an early nativist nation state plausible, or even possible but it seems like Canada would unlikely to come into existence and that alone would change the future of north America quite a bit.
Yeah people seem to get hung up that vinland NEEDS to be this expansionist neo-colony empire to make a difference in history. It doesn't. It just needs to stick around for a few hundred years. The natives getting their own horses and more standard livestock and maybe even making their own iron tools from the extended settlement of Vinland would have insane consequences. Also I don't think Vinland was that resource poor? Compared to greenland and iceland it was quite bountiful, hence the name Vinland. I don't think the norse found it that hostile of an environment. Aside from the natives themselves, which I admit are the biggest roadblock.
@@turkeygod6665 I wasn't even thinking about the earlier trade of livestock but that would be huge. Larger denser urban populations would be possible which would be a massive roadblock to later colonial projects.
If Vinland had survived a couple centuries, the diseases of Eurasia might have entered the Americas centuries earlier through the Vikings and by the time the Spanish showed up, Indians might have had much more time to recover from them and much more resistance to them, making for a very different European colonization story. I see that as the most likely difference for a 'successful' Vinland.
I definitely think this is an underexplored aspect of Norse settlement in north America. The vikings themselves aren't actually the most interesting part of such a scenario it's how native American society and dynamic with later European arrival changes with a few centuries of access to old world livestock and ironworking
On the gunpowder plot, the plotters actually did have a plan after the plot succeeded in two different ways, the plotters other than guy fawkes such as Thomas wintour actually moved into the north in order to incite rebellion to secure a new state, and place Charles the first on a the throne as a puppet. You place a Catholic referral as some impossibility when Charles the II and both James the first and second all tried to do this exact thing, and if it weren’t for William of Orange it would have succeeded. So the former point you make is just incorrect, and it would be incorrect to assume that Catholicism would be impossible to revert to, considering it defined the next era of English history
Was going to make a similar comment. While I wouldn't go as far as to say Charles II or James I were attempting a Catholic revival (more just Catholic sympathising), James II was a Catholic himself, and was only removed from power after he had a son and England was faced with the prospect of continued Catholic succession. Also the Wikipedia page that was showed showed a bunch of children who had died in childbirth. The only son of James I to make it to 20 years old was Charles I.
He also claimed that Elizabeth 1st had a "brutally repressive" regime, which just seems blatantly false, at least for the standards of a 16th century monarch. I mean when it came to religious matters (which in this time period post reformation was extremely important) Elizabeth was notably quite moderate compared to the far more radical puritans that existed
@@jamesriley7668 Yes they more or less were Catholic sympathisers which, in that time period was almost just as bad as being Catholic yourself. As the conflict between the Protestant parliament and Catholic sympathising King Charles the I led to the English civil wars and arguably the birth of liberalism, something that may have been overlooked by the video
@@piggysew797 yeah the video definitely has a ton of oversights when discussing this topic probably because it required a greater understanding of the time period because even if her rule was “bloody”… she was Protestant…
Yeah, I always felt that the Carthaginian scenario was one more of changing Carthage's inner structure and examining their system and its history rather than straight up victories- because by all means Carthage was definitely strong enough to beat a fledging state like Rome but at every point fumbled the bag
Yeah, Carthage simply not being obliterated would be a massive change in itself. A version of the Punic Wars that wasn't Winner-Take-All could be interesting, but as other comments have pointed out, that's just not how Rome viewed war, so Carthage was doomed from the start...
Elaborating on the "what if X tech is never invented" scenario type, I find it less interesting compared to scenarios where technologies emerge sooner. Stuff like "what if the Analytical Engine had the same impact as the steam engine?", "what if energy weapons were widespread in the 1950s?", "what if antigravity technology existed during the Islamic Golden Age?", "what if Rome discovered the secrets of gunpowder and papermaking?", etc. Goofy and hokey as they might be, I find such scenarios much more interesting because new technology causes wider changes due to its impact, where harder things become easier, and impractical things become more plausible. Technologies simply not emerging simply means stagnation as things stay more-or-less the same as they were in previous ages.
My favorite dumb scenario to see is "What if the steam engine was invented back in ancient time?" It's may favorite because I get to point out it was invented several times, some say back in Greece, through out history but never took off. Most dumb dumbs only think of the one invention but not all the other innovations and newer process to make it.
I mean the biggest problem is one you'd find if you just think about it. A lot of eras' are the way they are by the technolgy like "What if WW1 didn't invent internal combustion engine???" it would be just the franco-prussian war but bigger and without tanks or planes, even more static. so the reverse "What if the Romans invented internal combustion engines and discovered oil???/Gunpowder???" It'd be the whole 16th century to 18th century warfare but decades early, Dark Ages will just include more firearms than normal.
Carthage could definitely win against Rome, though it wouldn’t really take its place, and possibly Rome or some other state would defeat them later. But there is definitely a sizable chance that Carthage wins in the first or second Punic war.
I could see Justinian reconquering just North Africa and the various islands of the Mediterranean, reaping the financial benefit, and then just focusing on defending and preserving the Empire’s territories from there. If that was done, Eastern Rome/“Byzantium” could’ve persevered with its larger borders for quite a while I think.
This was a real good one Cody. A couple of these scenarios are actual scenarios I've been contemplating. And you really got me thinking now. I'm not going to say which two scenarios, but, I can guarantee you they are not one of the X scenarios. 😂
I will also add onto the italy part. The italian "dialects" for the most part actually represent completely different but similar languages. With there even being multiple different branches of the romance languages on the peninsula. The current standard italian was forged from the Tuscan language due to influential writers from the republic of Florence
I don’t think it was impossible for Hannibal to win the Punic wars. There were a number of Italy states that sided with him, and had he sacked Rome, that number would have grown. I do agree that a victorious Carthage would not have taken Rome's place as the rulers of all of Europe, although they could still have been a pretty impressive empire
You Look at the wrong Part of the war. If Hannibals Brother had been able to win Spain at around the Same time Hannibal won Cannae, then Rome would have lost. People forget how many soldiers Cathago lost in Spain. An early Victory there means that 150000 man could march to Help Hannibal. Heck, even some early Navel victorys could have swayed the Balance of Power to Cathago.
@@alexzero3736 Europe would probably have remained multi-polar. I could imagine Carthgage dominating the western Mediterranean and perhaps extending its influence into Greece, while the rest of Europe remains devided.
Simple problem is that Carthage didn't have the logistics to provide him with siege engines to tak Carthage, so in turn all Hannibal could do was raid theItalian countryside and try ambush the Roman armies and eventually run out of luck or siege Rome and get destroyed by an Italian army. You need Carthage to win the first Punic War and Carthage couldn't win the war even as it won the battles against a city state without a navy.
i always felt cathage's best shot was the first punic war not the second. rome was much smaller at the time and barely managed to outlast carthage there. both sides were down to their last fleet pretty much by the end. 2nd war was basically "everyone not named hannibal lost" on the carthage side.
Roman history is so split before and after the sack by the gauls. It appears to have totally militarised the culture to make sure it would never happen again. Something less dramatic, but similar seems to have happened to Carthage after the loss of the first punic war. It was probably a more formidible adversary because the culture was more anti-roman than previously
@@jacquesmcdermott2977 This. We have to remember that Roman society was extraordinarily militarized by the standards of their time (with nearly all men in their 20s armed and equipped to fight as soldiers.) Carthage couldn't really match it but it did put up a much more impressive resistance than any of the Hellenistic monarchies Rome attacked afterwards (as Bret Devereaux has pointed out in his blog).
Dude, just subbed, and wanted to say your content is killer... Was watching the alternate history video on the topic of "if japan became a christan country".. As a history lover I gotta say this is some really great stuff, and I hope you keep making content! Also want to give a shout out to oversimplified. Cheers.
I think the "No Pearl Harbor" scenario isn't really that stupid, when you consider that Manchuria is home to the biggest sources of oil in China. The Taching Oil Fields were instrumental for the industrialization of China and were found 14 years after WW2. If Japan was able to find those fields rather early in the 1930s it wouldn't be so unrealistic for them to focus on developing the oil production in Manchuria to remove their dependence from US oil imports.
I think that's a different scenario honestly. I think the question there is more " Does Pearl Harbor still happen if Japan find these reserve of oil" rather than " What if Japan just didn't do Pearl Harbor ?". Personally, I think it would had happened either way, conflict with the US was fairly inevitable as far as the Japanese was concerned at that point in the war. Striking Pearl Harbor was not just about the oil, it was also about getting a strategic advantage on the US by destroying their fleet early. Japan was always going to go towards the Dutch Indies and the Phillipines. If not for the oil, it'd be to integrate them in the Sphere of Co-Prosperity.
@@nicolasgarant9124 The war in the Pacific was the direct result of three factors. The War in China, US Oil Embargo, and the collapse of Western Europe to the Germans. Without those three issues together, it is doubtful the Anglophile and relatively peacenik Japanese Navy would have pushed for war.
@@nicolasgarant9124 I have to disagree. If Japan was independent from US oil, what need would there be for an invasion of South East Asia? If Japan could win the Sino-Japanese war without foreign resources, it would still take many years to finish the war and many more years of occupation to consolidate the victory. All that with Japan having to fear the Soviet Union from the North. They wouldn't risk loosing China and Manchuria to gain Indonesia and Malaysia. My guess is that if Japan won, the Soviets would have defeated Germany and the Cold War between the US and the Soviets would have started. Japan probably would have aligned itself more with the US in that conflict to protect themselves from the Soviets. Maybe they'd even give Indochina back to France as a symbol of good will, if the US agrees to stay out of Japan's spheres of influence. Not everyone in the Japanese government were blind warhawks. People like Kido Kōichi had a huge amount of influence over the Emperor and he knew war with the US was unwise
19:27 the only empire that had realistic chance to continue to this day is the Brazilian Empire, the republican coup only succeeded because the emperor Dom Pedro II allowed it, 2/3 of the generals and 90% of the population was against the republic, even in 1992 with the referendum about the government system, about 30% of the population was in favor of the monarchy, but the republicans postponed the referendum for about a year and basically banned the monarchists for making any propaganda in favor of the monarchy system, also the royal family was prohibited by law to endorse the monarchists, also the referendum was realized in 21 of april, the most brainwashed republican holiday that people had to memorize all the glories of the republic over the "satanist" and "tiranical" empire with an emperor that loved slaves.
10:43 is one of those scenarios that would be fun to explore in a holodeck, but awful to try to piece together with pen and paper. It would have a huge long term impact, but it would also be a complete randomizer since it would permanently change leadership on all levels going forward.
15:15 Alexander I of Serbia wasnt killed by anarchists and neither was Carlos I of Portugal. the former was assassinated by Serb ultranationalists, and the latter was killed by Portugese republicans.
Honestly that more alien version of an empire is what makes the scenario even more interesting, tracking the evolution of a civilization through centuries of new challenges against quantities known to us now but never even dreamed of by the society we're manipulating. Take Rome for example, a little known fact is that Rome had its own manifest destiny dream, and boy howdy was it a doozy, they believed it was the destiny of Rome to rule everything from Lusitania (Portugal) to Serica, or as we know it today, MOTHER FUCKING CHINA. Just imagine the history of wars Rome would need to fight to even border China, nevermind conquer it. The Punic wars would be ancient history compared to the knock down drag out of the Parsic wars. Integrating Gaul would be a distant memory compared to solidifying control up to the volga before sallying out into central Asia. And again, this is all *the setup* for what Rome intended to do eventually. Think of it like Trench Crusade, all that's recognizable about this scenario is some place names and geography, half the fun is how in god's name we got here.
4:40 So, small clarification here from a volcano enthusiast, the 536 Volcanic Winter doesn't have a known source. Krakatoa was theorized, but evidence from drilling in the Sundra Strait found that Krakatoa did not erupt in this time frame. The most lonely eruption is believed currently to have taken place in northeast California, the Aleutian mountains, or Northern Cordilleran Volcanic Province.
Guys, Guys, I got this. I can solve everything. HEAR ME OUT...What if Rome discovers Vaccines...I did it guys I changed everything in a completely reasonable, predictable, and feasible way.
On the note that vikings could never colonize the americas, what is the likelihood of them transmitting enough disease in moderation to allow the locals to build resistances to some big hitters before colonization
As I understand it (having read it in the book 1491, can't recall the author atm), the population in the Americas lacked the genetic diversity to withstand the worst old world plagues no matter when or how gradually they were introduced. The situation was certainly exacerbated in real history by sadly counterproductive cultural practices, like entire villages closely surrounding the sick to support them, and gross misunderstanding of disease - both the indigenous people and the colonizers basically saw plagues as a result of inscrutable divine will and had no real idea of the source or mechanism of their spread. But genetically, the 4 (iirc) haplogroups from which the entire population of the Americas had descended had little to no natural resistance or even adaptability to the highly human-adapted and aggressive diseases that had been festering for millenia on the other side of the globe. Epidemiologically, the new world was always going to be a tinderbox. It makes me so sad to think of.
I'd still love to see you explore a scenario where Franz Ferdinand isn't assassinated. Even if it wouldn't prevent WW1 it could delay the start date or shake up the alliances. Italy could join the Central Powers. Russia could be faced with a revolution that prevents its entry into the war. The Ottomans could have enacted reforms and started to bounce back.
Also, could AH survive in some form? A confederation? A proto-EU with a Monarch? Or perhaps AH joins the Allies, after being invaded by a Central Power Italy? Does this delay Polish reunification? A less harsh Versailles? Even if AH survives for a short while longer, it changes a lot.
@@solsunman383 If Austria is even a little more competent and united, they could have avoided the need to constantly be bailed out by Germany and given them more breathing room, potentially winning the war as Germany can more effectively concentrate its forces.
@@solsunman383 Absolutely it could. The idea of it being a crumbling house of cards is a post-war myth started by post-Hapsburg states and perpetuated/highlighted by British academia.
Italy won't join Central Powers, no matter what. 1. They were dependent on British coal and food imports. 2. They just annexed Lybia, and still fight local partisans. 3. Their fleet was far from ready to fight French or British one. 4. Austria- Hungary IRL didn't agree to give any land except small town of Trentino despite all German pressure. But Italy could stay neutral, as parliament was against the war. If Giovanni Giolitti stayed as head of government he could strike some neutrality deal with Austria- Hungary.
So a good way to sum up the last two is that things change so much that it stops being Alternate History and simply becomes *Fantasy* History instead. It kind of reminds me of one of your older videos where you tried to predict what it'd be like if Napoleon never took charge...and it just ends along the lines of "history changes so much that predicting anything past the end of the century is kind of pointless".
On the last point, there's a deliciously weird piece of futuristic literature that was featured on the youtube channel Kings and Things that was written _before_ the industrial revolution. The author tries to predict the future a thousand years in advance (while protesting the politics of his time), and it's fascinating to see what he physically can't comprehend with his pre-industrial understanding. On the flip side, it's also striking how many of his criticisms of the politics of his time are still contemporary and surprisingly "modern" to us.
Another issue with the idea of an early Italian unification is that it ignores the fact that external powers would have opposed it. France, Austria, and Spain (during the time periods where Spain and Austria weren't literally ruled by the same guy) all desired influence within the peninsula and would have been quick to militarily oppose anyone trying to bring all of Italy under one banner. It only happened in the 1800s because of strong support from Napoleon III of France, and honestly they got really lucky there because Napoleon III had a strong personal and ideological desire for Italian Unification and pushed for it despite the fact that it cost him a lot more than he got out of it. You could genuinely argue that it was a case of the sovereign pushing their personal projects even though they're harmful to the State's interests.
You just described what happened IRL. So called Italian wars, France, Spain, Papal States, Venice and others fought for influence over the peninsula for hundreds of years. But there was periods when France was busy, like 100 years war, Spain could be busy with Americas colonisation , and Austria was busy fighting in Bohemia or against Ottomans. Also Cody is wrong about ideological difference, ideas of Italy as art and culture, especially after Renaissance events were wide spread. I just think people pick wrong candidate as leading force for unification, it should be Visconti Milan, it was biggest kingdom in the peninsula in its peak, or it should be Venice as richest merchant republic with its famous fleet, the Arsenal. Also you are wrong about Napoleon the 3, he wasn't a fan of United Italy. Plombiers agreement supposed to free peninsula from Austrian influence, make Sardinia- Piedmont a bigger state with inclusion of Lombardy and part or full Venetia state , but central Italy supposed to become a French puppet state with Napoleons brother Jerome as head of state. Basically the treaty was broken when people of Modena, Parma and Tuscany rised to demand an unification with Sardinia- Piedmont. And Napoleon 3 himself broke the treaty by signing early peace treaty of VillaFranca with Austria. So Plombiers agreement was renegotiated later, as Sardinia gives Savoy and Nice, while France allows unification of kingdom of Sardinia and Central Italian states.
I feel for Justinian It COULD be done, but nigh impossible to keep it for any more than a few months to a years tops. because they got much of what they needed, France being all that was left and half of spain. I feel it was more like "Could have, but would have instantly fallen apart the nano-second he died"
Something I find interesting about the Gunpowder Plot is that it could have failed even with the explosion happening, because Guy Fawks was trying to dry out the powder WITH A TORCH! The alternate history that creates is the historical mystery of the night Westminster suddenly exploded.
I'd say that your point on 'X Empire never falling' is exactly what makes those scenarios interesting from a creative writing standpoint, for those who want to creatively speculate on and explore a diverged world.
Like what if the second half of earth had middle earth, ga’hool, pyrrhia and bowser’s mushroom kingdom instead of just ocean that would be madness because there’d be weird wars like the war on bowser.
My big problem with this type of video is that a lot of these so called "dumb scenarios" subjects are a lot more interesting and worth exploring than what is deemed a worthy subject of a typical AlternateHistoryHub video: *"What If Napoleon Never Fell? He Would Die Of Stomach Cancer." *FUCKING THANKS, CODY!* I'm sure your Patreons sleep well at night knowing you pulled an all-nighter for that one! That videos subject was so good, it had to be 10 minutes long and had a guest!1! 😃
18:16 The USSR never lost the space race. The US just set its own target and declared victory. Things changed later on, but the USSR led the way in early space exploration
There were too many things working against Florence doing anything to attempt Italian unification. Despite all of his talents even someone like Lorenzo de Medici was a poor banker and he lent out too much to people that were powerful enough to just not pay back their loans. Almost ruining the family. Unlike Venice Florence was an incredibly unstable republic. Power would periodically switch between ever competing families rather than through elected officials. Causing alot of infighting. And then you’ve got moments such as the rule of Girolamo Savonorola which did no good for Florence. And on top of it sometimes you would have multiple enemy states such as France and the Papal States ganging upon Florence to Put it in its place.
The last one is actually a larger discussion in science, namely: how important is the discover'er to the discovery? Like some things were just bound to happen, like the discovery of elements, congratz to the person who did it, but it was bound to happen, but then there is other discoveries where it happening definitely jumped forward time, like general relativity. Like without Einstein it would probably still come about, but easily could have taken 50+ years given everyone else at the time was so obsessed with the idea of QM. Overall its an interesting question of which discoveries were bound to happen because it was their time, and which were massive leaps forward compared to the current state of science
Merry Christmas Cody! I always wondered what would happen if serpentine blackpowder was discovered by the ancient Egyptians during the Bronze Age during attempts to find better ways to preserve mummies. The metallurgy of the time would've made it challenging to build firearms, but I can see analogues to fire lances & hand gonnes being made. Just never in great numbers due to expense. Pottery grenades maybe but hard to say. Another that is hard to guess the impact of is "What if the Roman soldiers successfully captured Archimedes instead of killing him when sent to capture him?"
The Japanese could avoided attacking the Us as they didnt actually need any American pacific territory at least not at that point. But it was deemed to risky to invade Allied territory with such a strong US naval and air presence sitting right behind them. A dumber scenario is Japan invading the USSR in 1941 instead
No they need the Philippines which was a US protectorate and we had military personnel there. Also attacking British Malaya and the Dutch East Indies would put them on a warpath with the US as we were already aiding the Allies in Europe through selling weapons and equipment and the painter was looking for an excuse to declare war. He took the opportunity that presented when Pearl Harbor happened, but sooner or later he would have declared war anyways if only to have the U-Boats go open season on American supplies being shipped Britain. With Japan already locked in a war with the UK, the US would follow suit.
Once the Embargo happened, no they couldn't. The need for resources meant they would have attacked territories owned by allies of the US no matter what, so they were pretty much "forced" in their view into attacking the US
For some reason your last entry reminds me of a short story I can barely recall. The premise was that some crucial piece of tech was actually pretty private, but we somehow failed to discover it. So revolutionary war era types teleport or something to our world trying to conquer it, but we are WAY more technologically advanced than they are and wipe the floor with them.
Gain access to the monthly exclusive videos and support the channel at www.patreon.com/c/AlternateHistoryHub
i lost my job my dog died and am homeless can i get access for free
Ha😂
are you a youtuber?
Yay :D my clone uploaded another video ....science money well spent :D
If only i had MONEY
Two devastating earthquakes, a volcanic eruption, riots burning the city, and a plague all happening within the same guy's rule feels like the universe just really hated that guy in particular. I'm surprised he didn't get struck by lightning or a meteor.
well, he did actually get the plague. like, coma deathbed will almost certainly die plague. but he lived and returned to ruling. its very possible he just dies in the middle of the plague in an alternate reality.
This is why I hate when people say Justinian was anything over than an S tier emperor. He still temporarily reunited the Empire despite all of this because not only was he brilliant but he surrounded himself with other brilliant people. People will say he was bad because he set the empire up for failure down the line (because of course he should’ve known the disunited arabs would’ve gone berserk) yet will excuse the Bulgar Slayer for more blatantly doing so because how could he have known the Turks would’ve gone berserk
I mean, that's an alternate history topic unto itself: what if Justinian's reign didn't have to deal with decades of natural disasters.
The universe just really wanted homie to suffer every last drop of it 💀
Add to that a very mean whale that sunk ships near Constantinople
What if Zambia won the space race
the Afronauts are truly the most powerful aeronautics group in the world. Edward Makuka Nkoloso smiles upon you from the glorious stars
Still find it funny that Senegal still has a satellite in space but Zambia does not
@@justanaveragesloth4141 didn’t they already do that? That’s just be repeating history mate
Well it obviously leads to the glorious Christianisation of Mars
😢
Can you do What if Santa wasn’t real?
Wait a minute...
wait what
What if Santa was real... but like... an
Known Alien?
Nice bait mate
Craziest one ever
Any WWI scenario gets crushed by that one quote from Blackadder Goes Fourth.
"It was simply too much effort not to have a war."
There are lots of great Blackadder quotes.
I like the one about the *great, infallible system of deterrence* which failed only because it was absolute bollocks.
Yup. A war was inevitable, the assassination of Franz Ferdinand was just the catalyst
2:24 If "Thick of it" was written in 200 BC
Holy Molly 🥶
The tv show?
Boring
In crasso sum, omnes sciunt Sciunt me ubi ninguit, ego prolabebantur et adligat Nescio nihil nil, non glaciem IRCA, non sum frigidus Quadraginta millia subs somethin aut sic, nuntiatum est Sum in mea prima et haec ne ultima quidem forma Pulsaverunt me, sed tamen, pedes, pavimentum inveniunt Ivi e vivis cubiculis recta ad venditionem-e Turonensis Pugna vitae est, sed fiducia, paratus sum ad bellum Woah-oh-oh Sic fama Woah-oh-oh Fatendum est quomodo fabula In crasso sum, omnes sciunt Sciunt me ubi ninguit, ego prolabebantur et adligat Nescio nihil nil, non glaciem IRCA, non sum frigidus Quadraginta millia subs somethin aut sic, nuntiatum est A velo ad anulum, ad calamum, ad regem Ubi est corona mea? Hoc mihi bling Semper drama cum tinniant Ecce, credo, si videro in corde meo Frangit per laquearia, Im 'causa reachin' pro astra Woah-oh-oh Sic fama Woah-oh-oh Fatendum est quomodo fabula In crasso sum, omnes sciunt Sciunt me ubi ningit, ego skied et adligat (woo) Nescio nihil nil, non glaciem IRCA, non sum frigidus Quadraginta millia subs somethin aut sic, nuntiatum est
Humanity would've been extinct by 1 BC
The problem for Carthage is that the Romans during this period of time took war very personally. For them it was either total victory or total defeat. Rarely would they sue for peace unless it was absolutely necessary.
Had Rome possessed a less extreme culture which would allow them to sue for peace after their 3 defeats, as if they believed that war was no longer worth it then it is possible for Carthage to benefit from the Punic wars. Perhaps they would have survived as a society longer.
Or if Hannibal listened to his top generals, like Marhabal and marched on Rome after Cannae. He didn't heed their advice and lost the war. Yes, Rome could of been sacked because the Gauls did it before the Punic Wars, but was paid a large tribute to leave the city. Also, the book Saturnalia by Macrobius states that after Cannae Rome was in such bad shape that they had to purchase and recruit slaves from their citizens to build up the manpower for their army. So, Hannibal missed out on a golden opportunity to lay Seige to Rome after Cannae. But, you have to give it to the Romans they went all out in warfare, they had a victory or death mindset.
In that case, the bigger result is Rome not being a massive Empire, and Carthage not being destroyed, but allowed to change and evolve, or fall like a normal state.
@@sterlingsimmons2212 >Or if Hannibal listened to his top generals, like Marhabal and marched on Rome after Cannae.
To do what? Stare at the walls menacingly until his supplies run out?
@090giver090 The Servian Walls were probably a C or B for city defensive walls at best. That's why Rome had to upgrade to the Aurelian walls, which were a major upgrade. But, given that the Servian walls which were used when the Gauls sacked the city, was still used as protection during the Punic Wars. It's safe to say Rome was in serious trouble if Hannibal did decide to lay siege to the city.
@@sterlingsimmons2212 @sterlingsimmons2212 They did repair and upgraded the Severian wall after the Brennus, so walls of late III century BC were not the same as in early IV century. Although not as impressive as walls of Carthage, they still pose an obstacle for an army with zero siege equipment (like Hannibal's army). And considering that chances of southern Italian cities changing allegiance would be smaller without Hannibal's army present, there is a big chance that sieging army would be sandwiched between city garrison (that consisted not only of pressed slaves and emergency recruits but also of at least two legions left there before Cannae) and a new latin/italic army recruited in hinterland.
Marhabal's plan was a typical high risk - high yield gamble.
During 3rd War romans actually did the same - they eliminated last Carthaginian field armies and subjugated last Punic cities still allied to Carthage and only then started sieging the Carthage itself.
You know while I agree with the belief that the Viking wouldn't colonize America, I still think that Viking assimilation would be a fascinating scenario. The Viking were just as much into trading as they were into raiding so it wouldn't be much of a stretch for them to turn newfoundland into a trading hub for them to exchange goods with the native Americans.
If that happened, then you would get effectively a Scandinavian version of the Columbian exchange with both groups getting access to the others flora, fauna, technology and culture changing both societies radically. Add in the possibly of six centuries of intermingling between the two groups resulting in the Americans gaining herd immunity to the European diseases that wiped them out in the OTL and the chances of native American civilization fending off colonization becomes much higher.
Well at least that's my POV what do you think?
Very logical. Vinland doesn't need to become an empire to have potentially huge impacts. Think about how much spanish horses changed native nations. Now those same horses arrived hundreds of years earlier. Even that by itself is huge.
I think this video also vastly undersells how valuable beaver pelts were. Combine french-canadian style fur trapping with the arctic walrus ivory trade and there is a lot of potential for a norse foothold to expand into a very interesting kind of colonization and exchange.
A group of Vikings who assimilated into an American tribe could also teach them how to make steel weapons. That would be a huge advancement.
Yeah this is an interesting scenario!
The OTL actually had this happen. The viking groups that made it to America before Spain did eventually assimilated with the local natives. If you ever heard of Canada's "blue-eyed natives," it is theorized that they are descendants of vikings and natives intermingling. However they're more of an isolated phenomenon.
What ultimately kills this scenario IMO is the scale required for what you're proposing. Granting heard immunity to the entirety of North America would basically require ALL of the vikings moving to Vinland at the same time, and even then the result you're asking for still probably wouldn't happen. Not only that but whoever they intermingled with would probably determine their allegiances in the regional conflicts, which would ultimately restrict how far their influence would spread.
So it's a cool concept that happened in real life, but was never going to lead to the results you're hoping for IMO.
I'm still curious about what if Ned Kelly's supposed coup succeeded?
Victorian police theorized his plan was to start an armed uprising, calling back to Eureka Springs, and eliminated a majority of the VC police forces with the planned train accident.
He planned to do these things, but he couldn't have actually done it
the good ending
What if he thought to armour his legs???
@@Raz.C He’d be slowed down.
@@Raz.C He'd fall over. The gang weren't trained blacksmiths.
The Franz Ferdinand reference at 14:01 got me off guard, glad to see it still goes hard after 110 years
We still use steam power. Fusion piwer is still about boiling water and moving turbines. Great video as always. Happy holidays.
Just throwing it out there: an alternate history where Santa is real would be insane. How would the existence of a magical, immortal man at the North Pole affect human history from the Victorian Era onwards?
If I had to guess, a guy dressed in red giving out free stuff would be a major concern for the United States throughout the Cold War. The CIA would definitely try to install an elf junta at the North Pole in this timeline.
Basically turns Santa Into a communist?
@ The North Pole is already a centrally-controlled economy where resources are distributed “according to need” (i.e. the naughty/nice list)
But... he already is? Who do you think delivers the presents?
Santa gives less or lower quality gifts to poor people. He's not a socialist since he doesn't give based on need.
Santa just means saint and as you might have guessed Saint Nicholas is in fact a real person he just didnt look like you may think en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_Nicholas
I have one problem with Justinianian's take: He did reunite the Roman empire, by conquering Rome and Italy, which immediately collapsed after his death. And even so, it wasn't "reunification", but a reconquest of lands formerly held
I think that’s the point, any reconquest is going to be incredibly short lived
@@blurb9319 Yes, but the scenario states during Justinian's lifetime, which did happen, and not afterwards, so there is wriggle room
His wife was an ex-hooker, they couldnt have kids, she died of cancer, he was ill of black death.
And still made so much and lived a happy marriage.
I had never realuzed it, Justanian was at the same time the most unfortunate yet fortunate king ever.
This is actually a great way of putting it, and a clear reason for WHY it fell apart so quickly
@@iain-duncan exactly
So fun fact about the gun powder plot.....sort of. In the 2000s, a TV show hosted by Richard Hammond built a moke house of Lords from the time put dummies in it and blew it up. The show is on UA-cam if anyone wants to watch it
You can always rely on Hamster to blow something up.
Link please
@@Kitt_the_Katt ua-cam.com/video/h1b2w4GxBU0/v-deo.htmlsi=zpbNlv5KIT5GFjDj
@@Kitt_the_Katt ua-cam.com/video/h1b2w4GxBU0/v-deo.htmlsi=zpbNlv5KIT5GFjDj
based Top Gear crew
10:20 "Ironically The Italian Unification was the last and most difficult"
Yugoslavs : "Hold my Beer"
*Cue rebel with beret and accordion.* 🪗
more like Eastern Europe in general.
9:56 & 10:26 That divide actually goes *way* deeper. According to most linguists, those aren’t 30-40 dialects of Italian, those are about 12 completely *different languages* with their own dialects.
They’re just called dialects of Italian because it makes it easier to look past regional divides when you pretend they’re the same language, which made Italian unification a lot easier to maintain.
Modern Italian is based on the Tuscan Language (not to be confused with Etruscan), because a lot of popular literature came from Florence, and was thus written in it.
Belesarius deserves more credit than Justinian for Byzantine conquests. Dude is an underrated military commander.
Thanks for mentioning this, bro did all the heavy lifting.
And who appointed him for the conquest?
Yeah Justinian himself didn't do the conquest, but he was the catalyst that allowed it to happen.
@@Dont14-r4k Justinian was very much a 2nd Augustus in this regard, he was amazing at finding the best people to delegate the most important jobs to instead of just nepotism
@@johnsupergeil7098 It’s why he was so good, the combination of Him, Belisarius and Theodora was incredible. Honestly, we need a well done film on his reign, he’s got one of the most interesting ones for sure.
Honestly that whole administration were chads
0:15 the kazoo gets me every time!
Same 😂
Remember, remember, the 5th of November.
The Gunpowder treason and plot.
For Guy Fawkes was a bit of a nitwit.
And definitely not a good shot.
I love the fact that the plot was only uncovered because one of the plotters sent a letter to their relative telling them not to go near Parliament on the 5th of November.
@@shivill2236 ...Jesus, was it actually? Guess incompetence really can ruin the best laid of plans. Oh well, the movie and comic are still cool, so who cares?
@@shivill2236The original “You’re cool. Don’t come to school tomorrow.”
@@aidangordon2713 Yeah someone in the plot sent a letter to a member of parliament saying "maybe don't go in tomorrow" to which they sent the letter to the spy master (guy who investigates plots) and they investigated the building eventually finding the gun powder and Guy Fawkes.
It's amusing how this guy who really just wanted to commit mass terrorism in the implementing a specific religious government has become idolized into a freedom fighter.
"You see, these fantasy and hypothetical situations could never happen because they didn't happen" 🤣 great video though, love learning about history
lmao , that's funny
Rather than a scenario positing "X tech never gets invented", I like to toy with 2 variants... "What if X tech came later", and "What if X tech was discovered by X first". Tends to lead to much more plausible scenarios, and be more fun to explore overall.
Number 11: Cody releasing the 2nd part for the state anthems video.
I've accepted that it'll never happen.
17:44 Gorbachev's birth Mark is now Mexico for some reason😮
I think it’s a reference to Grand Budapest Hotel, actually- A character in that movie has a mexico-shaped birthmark on her cheek. AFAIK althisthub has portrayed gorby like that for a long time, nothing new
It always has been
Idk if it’s been covered in pt 1, but: What if Hitler never invaded Russia? It’s stupid, because that was literally all Hitler wanted to do. To make him not invade Russia would require a rethinking of all Hitler’s goals, and then it really isn’t the same Hitler, so it’s meaningless.
Think the Only scenario that would have made a lick of sense, (Very Very optimistic outlook), is that France and Britain took Hitlers call against Communism seriously and did decide to enter the negotiation table immediately instead of waiting till Poland got invaded, to create an Anti-communist European block,
It most likely never would've happened as both Britain and France were absolutely spent and still recovering from the first War, and it would've taken Quite a lot to make them decide the USSR needed intervention and containment
the realistic scenario isn't a not, it's just that it's delayed until Russia invades German territory. Which holy hell that would have been a disaster considering Russian's... entire military doctrine. Into the teeth of a Germany with stable supply lines with dysfunctional logistics. Long story short though it follows the same route as the sealion scenario from this channel and the US looks at two german cities and says 'delet this'
@zacharymccann6632 he did already made a video on this but I agree, if you want a Germany who doesn’t invade the Soviets, it is a completely different Germany and WW2. They used the Slavs and Jews as a focal point for their aspirations and plans. With this reason gone, then their whole party idea falls apart.
Hitler would just have to die.
In WW1 Irish soldier felt sorry for such youngster on the front and didn't kill him.
It's basically "if the Nazis weren't Nazis".
I will say about Franz Ferdinand surviving assassination, a world where WW1 starts in 1914 looks very different tham one where it starts in 1924 or 1904. Which might make neat video ideas.
World War One in 1905 would be an interesting topic.
Easy win for Germany or nah?
You could argue it either way.
I think the biggest change would be advancement in Eletronics and Radio Technology but the radio part is a big strech because a lot of the technology which the 1924 is known for, was because WW1. Without WW1, the world, ironically, would be set back A LOT technology wise, the war is really one of those few things that pushes man kind to actually make the world a better place while trying to kill each other as efficiantly as possible.
But a 1904 WW1 could be very interesting because it would be a bigger Franco-Prussian War due to how the two era's technology are so simmilar safe from the wide adoption of single shot metallic cartridges rifles, and probably a lack of machine gun-
Ok now that I think about it, 1904 WW1 would be just an more modern Napoleonic War rather than what we would consider WW1 with Trench Warfare, Planes, Tanks and Machine Guns.
I say this because Machine guns really became imporant around 1910s, which is why they were so deadly and so bad in hindsight, because they were cutting edge technology really only seen in colonial grounds.
@@alanpennie8013 In 1905? Unless Germany manages to actually get to Paris it gets steamrolled hard.
Almost 1/2 of German ammunition production is credited to Haber-Bosch process which was invented in 1908. Without it Germany would have massive fertilizer shortages (and as a result food shortages) not by year 4, but next year. And unlike our timeline, ammo shortages wouldn't be resolved, because it couldn't be solved without fertilizers import.
Basically, actual war until Christmas
@ALE199-itaThe Boer War had already given the template for 1914. What would be very different in 1905 was that Russia was in chaos after the disasters against Japan.
@@davidevans3822
I think Terence Zuber argued in one of his articles that Russia was less affected by the revolution of 1905 than is often thought.
The army remained reliable very much unlike 1917.
It's great to see my home of newfoundland mentioned in your video, I see so many people overlook our viking settlement on the island, thank you and merry Christmas
Another thing to consider with Justinian's attempt to reunify Rome with the west...
Imagine the perception from those living in the west? Like you said, Rome's west only officially fell less than a century ago, those Germanic peoples still saw themselves as Roman, it's not like they stopped being Roman as soon as a Goth took over. Rome had plenty of emperors from all over at that point from Gaul, Thrace, Africa...
One person explained it like this that when Belisarius came and the people saw soldiers carrying the banner of Rome coming as conquerers it helped to alienate them and reinforced this idea that the former Western Empire was no longer truly Roman.
Furthermore, the Gothic wars and Belisarius' conquests basically killed off what was left of Roman urbanism. The Ostragoths waltzing into the Italian peninsula did *far* less damage to the vestigial Roman institutions, economics and urbanism than the Roman "reconquest" of Italy. So, in a sense, while Justinian "reunified" the empire on paper, in practice Italy had never been less Roman under Byzantine suzerainty.
@@CollinMcLean furry detected
@@jakespacepiratee3740 I will neither confirm nor deny that accusation...
Yep. Theodoric was the Western Roman Emperor in all but name.
13:50 - Yeah, sadly there was no way to avoid WW1. The only thing this would is delay the inevitable by a few years to maybe a decade or two if were being generous.
Just having WW I break out in 1934 instead of 1914 brings it’s own interesting butterfly effect, though. Would the U.S. have the resources or the will to join a war that broke out in the midst of the dust bowl? Would more advanced aviation technology allow for the type of trench warfare that featured so predominately during our timelines’s version of WWI? Etc.
@@jennifersalt3194 no, the only reason for such technologies was the pressure imposed by war
@@wornplatypus4781 Thats not how technology works, and while yes it was a major driver for the development of technology it is not like the world would be stagnant for 20 years in terms of technology
1. There were ways.
Like if Britain didn't wait until invasion of Belgium happened, and provided ultimatum to Germans to stop immediately.
Also German parliament didn't approve the war.
2. There were ways to make the war faster and less bloody.
Like if Entente agreed on Bulgaria demands and Bulgaria joined Entente side, which would mean much better situation for Serbia and Romania later. No occupation, no exile to Corfu, no concentration camps on Serbian territory.
Ottoman Empire also wasn't predetermined to join the Central powers, it had huge monetary debt to England and France, so they could join the Entente as form of payment.
Having access to Bosphorus straits would mean much easier transportation of ammo, guns and other things that Russia needed to hold the front, also absence of Caucasus front would help.
3. If the war happened later, with mass introduction of cars, armored cars and maybe tanks to the armies.
It also would be shorter and less bloody. It won't be a war for survival like WW2, because fascism and Nazism would not born yet
Just because it seems unlikely in reality does not make it so, it is very much possible that without a Strong catalyst like the Assassination of Archduke Ferdinand that if the war were to still occur the nature and scale of it as well as timeframe could be monstrously different not mentioning the difference in culture prior and after.
Carthage winning would have required two things (at least).
-No corvid beak (the invention that allowed lousy Roman ships to lock down Carthage’s ships and turn naval warfare into land-ish battles).
-no Fabius (as in he dies or is exiled before Hannibal arrives), because without scorched earth tactics Hannibal had a real shot.
Realistically Rome was extremely flexible, innovative, and terrifyingly aggressive. Carthage probably would have lost in the long run, but I think those two things allow a window for Carthage to break Rome.
I think the thing that Carthage could do is break Rome long enough for someone else to emerge as a competitor, like in Gaul. Carthage, long-term, would not be able to do what Rome did and make an empire, but its weakening of Rome could 100% have pretty enormous consequences.
@ Rome was eventually broken enough that it couldn’t rebuild, in our timeline. There wasn’t anyone that took their place. I think Carthage may have been able to do the same thing, but I agree they wouldn’t have replaced Rome.
If Rome couldn’t rest the seas from Carthage (which I don’t think would have happed without the beak) they would have been weakened by lower trade and connectivity with allies and vassal states. They would have also been starved for resources. Hannibal without Fabius would’ve had a solid shot at taking or breaking the city of Rome, especially without Roman naval supremacy, and with Carthage reinforcing and resupplying the expeditionary force.
I could have this all wrong, but that’s how I see things.
25:05 as a rubik's cube nerd I can't stress this enough
The Cube was invented multiple times, heck stuff like the cube that isn't the traditional 3x3 were invented multiple times before the cube.
The most popular example is with the pyraminx as it was invented before the cube but was patented after the cube
To elaborate on the "X never falls" section (or that whole genre of alternate history), it is near impossible to predict alternate histories on that scale. We have no way of guessing which decisive figures would rise and fall, what social trends would emerge or decline, after any real length of time after a point of divergence. People in an alternate timeline hypothesising about our own would have no way of predicting things like Caesar's rise or a storm destroying a fleet. There are too many variables to consider, and too many events that happen out of nowhere that change the course of history.
The whole thought exercise should be taken on a scale of plausibility and contrivance. There are more-likely and less-likely scenarios, but after a while everything becomes fiction. It's the nature of the hobby.
*Most empires would be lucky to last two or three centuries.*
It would be wise to remember that.
I don't know if that is applicable anymore. The vast interconnectedness of the world would be in comprehensible to any nation before the 20th century. Everyone depends on each other in a way that has never existed; downturns in one country can have dramatic impacts on others. Most importantly, nations (major ones anyway) don't wage war with each other constantly as has been done all throughout history. The Russian and Ukrainian war is the first peer to peer conflict in 70 years. That would be completely unheard of 200 years ago. However, that doesn't mean revolutions and conquests are not possible. We live in a time where most of the population has not experienced and does not understand war, so who knows.
transnational empires exists today, extremely powerful people, linked by their secondary nationality
@@JavierSalcedoC 🇮🇱
@@Wumbotron5000 That's Angela Merkel's logic and it doesn't hold. If one government is dead set on achieving a goal there's nothing stopping the leader from going through with it no matter how self destructive. Interconnectedness is also a weakness in that propaganda, subterfuge and espionage are far easier to carry out than ever before. You can take down a power plant from the other side of the world, radicalise populations with misinformation or send confidential documents faster than anyone can stop. Sure bringing down an Empire will harm your own trade but if that collapse results in your own nation eventually getting ahead it all the short term pain might be worth it. Or maybe that's what the leaders believe before they do something stupid.
Except Rome which lasted 1000 years lmao
Merry Christmas Everyone 🎄
@@thorny213 eh i don’t follow infadels delusions. Allah is the one true god.
@@jakespacepiratee3740please go get a life
@@jakespacepiratee3740 this reply section can't possibly go well
Happy Saturnalia
Merry Christmas!
Honestly, I think people just get too caught up in the sauce of "what is the most realistic scenario" and the butterfly effect to realize that alternate history is just fiction, and fiction should be fun and not try to get too boggled down with the details of it all.
exactly! i don't understand the point of calling alternate history scenarios "dumb" when this entire channel is based on dumb scenarios where the vast majority of the videos hinge on the impossible happening.
i mean this guy LITERALLY makes videos like "what if north africa actually got a lot of rain and wasn't a dessert?" and "what if landmasses were completely different england wasn't actually an island?".
like.. dude.. if weather patterns and fault lines can be changed on a whim, i'm sure you can think of a scenario where carthage comes out on top. 😆
Leviathan is great alternative history (for kids) because of this. Focusing on giant robots vs big genetically modified whale airships is just fantastic
I think we should let mans do whatever is the most fun for him
While I don't disagree, the problem with making fiction fun and ignoring the realistic circumstances is that it just becomes wish fulfillment. Like in the case of werhaboos trying to come up with random bs for how Germany could have won ww2.
The problem is when alternate histories based upon unrealistic scenarios are popularized without the proper context. Similarly, an individual can essentially delude themselves independently into having a poor understanding of the world around them and of its past if they focus on their enthusiasm for the fiction, without sufficient deference to the facts. There needs to be firm mental separation between said fiction and the individual's understanding of actual history.
There is nothing inherently problematic about unrealistic alternate histories as a storytelling device.
However, when readers (or writers, for that matter) use those unrealistic scenarios to supplant actual understanding of history, then it can have a problematic effect.
22:50, I do have to agree with this since the chemistry/biology/physics underlying every invention exist regardless of the brilliant minds that discover and/or make such principles useful. Yes there are certain inventions that could remain science fiction, nukes probably being the biggest since it's so enormously expensive to refine bomb capable elements... but even if no one ever built a nuclear explosive device we still would almost certainly have nuclear reactors both for research and power generation by alternate today with someone realizing the big kabooms fission and fusion could create.
Yay! Merry Christmas, ALTHUB!!! Long Live Altremer!
Rather than Vikings attempting complete colonial domination of North America, the more interesting question is what if they had just stuck around? If they had built a few towns, and maintained Newfoundland and Labroador as a trading ports for a few centuries this would dramatically shift future colonialist efforts. Greater and earlier trade with native populations would make these peoples more resistant to disease. Even a slightly more well armed, and well organized native resistance (Who have potentially been warring with their new viking neighbors for generations) would also make colonial efforts more difficult. I don't know if that would be a large enough shift to make something like an early nativist nation state plausible, or even possible but it seems like Canada would unlikely to come into existence and that alone would change the future of north America quite a bit.
Yeah people seem to get hung up that vinland NEEDS to be this expansionist neo-colony empire to make a difference in history. It doesn't. It just needs to stick around for a few hundred years. The natives getting their own horses and more standard livestock and maybe even making their own iron tools from the extended settlement of Vinland would have insane consequences.
Also I don't think Vinland was that resource poor? Compared to greenland and iceland it was quite bountiful, hence the name Vinland. I don't think the norse found it that hostile of an environment. Aside from the natives themselves, which I admit are the biggest roadblock.
@@turkeygod6665 I wasn't even thinking about the earlier trade of livestock but that would be huge. Larger denser urban populations would be possible which would be a massive roadblock to later colonial projects.
If Vinland had survived a couple centuries, the diseases of Eurasia might have entered the Americas centuries earlier through the Vikings and by the time the Spanish showed up, Indians might have had much more time to recover from them and much more resistance to them, making for a very different European colonization story. I see that as the most likely difference for a 'successful' Vinland.
I definitely think this is an underexplored aspect of Norse settlement in north America. The vikings themselves aren't actually the most interesting part of such a scenario it's how native American society and dynamic with later European arrival changes with a few centuries of access to old world livestock and ironworking
Doubt those small town would have survived Viking culture anyways.
On the gunpowder plot, the plotters actually did have a plan after the plot succeeded in two different ways, the plotters other than guy fawkes such as Thomas wintour actually moved into the north in order to incite rebellion to secure a new state, and place Charles the first on a the throne as a puppet. You place a Catholic referral as some impossibility when Charles the II and both James the first and second all tried to do this exact thing, and if it weren’t for William of Orange it would have succeeded. So the former point you make is just incorrect, and it would be incorrect to assume that Catholicism would be impossible to revert to, considering it defined the next era of English history
Was going to make a similar comment. While I wouldn't go as far as to say Charles II or James I were attempting a Catholic revival (more just Catholic sympathising), James II was a Catholic himself, and was only removed from power after he had a son and England was faced with the prospect of continued Catholic succession.
Also the Wikipedia page that was showed showed a bunch of children who had died in childbirth. The only son of James I to make it to 20 years old was Charles I.
He also claimed that Elizabeth 1st had a "brutally repressive" regime, which just seems blatantly false, at least for the standards of a 16th century monarch. I mean when it came to religious matters (which in this time period post reformation was extremely important) Elizabeth was notably quite moderate compared to the far more radical puritans that existed
Might be possible that to accurately tell British history, you need a pom and not someone educated in the USA...
@@jamesriley7668 Yes they more or less were Catholic sympathisers which, in that time period was almost just as bad as being Catholic yourself. As the conflict between the Protestant parliament and Catholic sympathising King Charles the I led to the English civil wars and arguably the birth of liberalism, something that may have been overlooked by the video
@@piggysew797 yeah the video definitely has a ton of oversights when discussing this topic probably because it required a greater understanding of the time period because even if her rule was “bloody”… she was Protestant…
What if my dad didn't beat me?
That is an impossibility and won’t be mentioned.
Zig Zag: What if my dad stopped drinking and my mom came home?
Bruh
You’d never would’ve been able write this comment-there done!
I'm sorry that happened :(
12:31 I am pretty sure it was Mary who was an oppressive Catholic, and Elizabeth laid the foundation for the modern Anglican church
Elizabeth murdered so many Catholics she drove the Faith completely underground and is only surpassed in brutality by Oliver Cromwell.
He means she *laid* them by oppressing Catholics more and more (mainly by ruinous fines) until they agreed to join the CoE.
@@alanpennie8013 Not to mention the *violent content*
"What if (x technology) wasnt invented" realistically would just lead to someone else making it later
6:09 how dare you talk about history on a history channel. I am so ashamed I was a subscriber 😔
Yeah, I always felt that the Carthaginian scenario was one more of changing Carthage's inner structure and examining their system and its history rather than straight up victories- because by all means Carthage was definitely strong enough to beat a fledging state like Rome but at every point fumbled the bag
Yeah, Carthage simply not being obliterated would be a massive change in itself. A version of the Punic Wars that wasn't Winner-Take-All could be interesting, but as other comments have pointed out, that's just not how Rome viewed war, so Carthage was doomed from the start...
@@RipOffProductionsLLC What if Hannibal was a great Naval Commander instead and Rome was unable to land?
Elaborating on the "what if X tech is never invented" scenario type, I find it less interesting compared to scenarios where technologies emerge sooner. Stuff like "what if the Analytical Engine had the same impact as the steam engine?", "what if energy weapons were widespread in the 1950s?", "what if antigravity technology existed during the Islamic Golden Age?", "what if Rome discovered the secrets of gunpowder and papermaking?", etc.
Goofy and hokey as they might be, I find such scenarios much more interesting because new technology causes wider changes due to its impact, where harder things become easier, and impractical things become more plausible. Technologies simply not emerging simply means stagnation as things stay more-or-less the same as they were in previous ages.
Not necessarily. Some other inventions may still have been invented and in a way would would then get some retrofuturist version of the past/ present.
My favorite dumb scenario to see is "What if the steam engine was invented back in ancient time?" It's may favorite because I get to point out it was invented several times, some say back in Greece, through out history but never took off. Most dumb dumbs only think of the one invention but not all the other innovations and newer process to make it.
I mean the biggest problem is one you'd find if you just think about it. A lot of eras' are the way they are by the technolgy
like "What if WW1 didn't invent internal combustion engine???" it would be just the franco-prussian war but bigger and without tanks or planes, even more static.
so the reverse "What if the Romans invented internal combustion engines and discovered oil???/Gunpowder???" It'd be the whole 16th century to 18th century warfare but decades early, Dark Ages will just include more firearms than normal.
24:12 I didn't expect at all to see Julius Caesar that we see in the Astérix comics in my country and Merry Christmas!
Great video and Merry Christmas.
Now this is a nice Christmas gift
Carthage could definitely win against Rome, though it wouldn’t really take its place, and possibly Rome or some other state would defeat them later. But there is definitely a sizable chance that Carthage wins in the first or second Punic war.
I could see Justinian reconquering just North Africa and the various islands of the Mediterranean, reaping the financial benefit, and then just focusing on defending and preserving the Empire’s territories from there. If that was done, Eastern Rome/“Byzantium” could’ve persevered with its larger borders for quite a while I think.
This was a real good one Cody. A couple of these scenarios are actual scenarios I've been contemplating. And you really got me thinking now. I'm not going to say which two scenarios, but, I can guarantee you they are not one of the X scenarios. 😂
I will also add onto the italy part.
The italian "dialects" for the most part actually represent completely different but similar languages. With there even being multiple different branches of the romance languages on the peninsula. The current standard italian was forged from the Tuscan language due to influential writers from the republic of Florence
22:13 That commercial, though, is perhaps one of the top ten greatest ever.
Thank you kind soul, for giving me the opportunity to find this gem.
I don’t think it was impossible for Hannibal to win the Punic wars. There were a number of Italy states that sided with him, and had he sacked Rome, that number would have grown. I do agree that a victorious Carthage would not have taken Rome's place as the rulers of all of Europe, although they could still have been a pretty impressive empire
You Look at the wrong Part of the war. If Hannibals Brother had been able to win Spain at around the Same time Hannibal won Cannae, then Rome would have lost. People forget how many soldiers Cathago lost in Spain. An early Victory there means that 150000 man could march to Help Hannibal.
Heck, even some early Navel victorys could have swayed the Balance of Power to Cathago.
If Carthage not takes place of Rome, than Who? Gaulls? Etruscans?
@@alexzero3736 Europe would probably have remained multi-polar. I could imagine Carthgage dominating the western Mediterranean and perhaps extending its influence into Greece, while the rest of Europe remains devided.
Simple problem is that Carthage didn't have the logistics to provide him with siege engines to tak Carthage, so in turn all Hannibal could do was raid theItalian countryside and try ambush the Roman armies and eventually run out of luck or siege Rome and get destroyed by an Italian army. You need Carthage to win the first Punic War and Carthage couldn't win the war even as it won the battles against a city state without a navy.
@@alexzero3736 Nobody. History takes a completely different shape.
i always felt cathage's best shot was the first punic war not the second. rome was much smaller at the time and barely managed to outlast carthage there. both sides were down to their last fleet pretty much by the end. 2nd war was basically "everyone not named hannibal lost" on the carthage side.
Roman history is so split before and after the sack by the gauls. It appears to have totally militarised the culture to make sure it would never happen again. Something less dramatic, but similar seems to have happened to Carthage after the loss of the first punic war. It was probably a more formidible adversary because the culture was more anti-roman than previously
@@jacquesmcdermott2977
This.
We have to remember that Roman society was extraordinarily militarized by the standards of their time (with nearly all men in their 20s armed and equipped to fight as soldiers.)
Carthage couldn't really match it but it did put up a much more impressive resistance than any of the Hellenistic monarchies Rome attacked afterwards (as Bret Devereaux has pointed out in his blog).
Napoleon: I love drawing borders!
The rest of Western Europe: Just draw a straight line across the map and call it done.
Dude, just subbed, and wanted to say your content is killer... Was watching the alternate history video on the topic of "if japan became a christan country".. As a history lover I gotta say this is some really great stuff, and I hope you keep making content! Also want to give a shout out to oversimplified. Cheers.
i love pretending i’m a carrot. i sometimes lay in the garden but this will get lost in the comments but i’m glad i got it off my chest
This was the recommended comment, actually
That’s not a carrot, you would have to dig a hole and bury yourself shoulders deep to do a true carrot larp. Maybe move to an easier cabbage larp?
I got you know
nawh dawg u living dis down now
@@TheodoresTomfooleries i hate you.
What if Italy & Japan joined the allies in WW2?
What if I joined the allies in WW2?
What if you joined the allies in WW2?
What if the U.S joined Hitler 😂
What if Diddy joined the Allie’s in WW2
@@TheActualFuckingSunain't no party like a diddy party
A video on Christmas is crazy (I’m watching this after my family meet up)
its christmas eve
@petermmm42 I’m Australian
@@DerpCo333 oh I didnt realize Christmas already came for some people I thought the timezones were 12 hours difference max
@petermmm42 it’s 7:22 AM
@@DerpCo333 for me its 7:17 Pm Christmas Eve right now, Merry Christmas!
Dude, I am excited for the State anthems part 2... That first one was captivating
3:59 "And then, there's the disasters." is a great line
What if the penguins of the madagascar ruled the USSR in 1962?
Elimination of megafauna in seas and oceans
Denmark will be doomed.😂😂
Ice cold sushi for breakfast
Okay, I'm listening
"Rico, quell those student protests!"
"Boom?"
I think the "No Pearl Harbor" scenario isn't really that stupid, when you consider that Manchuria is home to the biggest sources of oil in China. The Taching Oil Fields were instrumental for the industrialization of China and were found 14 years after WW2. If Japan was able to find those fields rather early in the 1930s it wouldn't be so unrealistic for them to focus on developing the oil production in Manchuria to remove their dependence from US oil imports.
Not to mention it was FDR doing everything in his power to antagonize the Japanese into attacking us in the first place anyway.
I think that's a different scenario honestly. I think the question there is more " Does Pearl Harbor still happen if Japan find these reserve of oil" rather than " What if Japan just didn't do Pearl Harbor ?".
Personally, I think it would had happened either way, conflict with the US was fairly inevitable as far as the Japanese was concerned at that point in the war. Striking Pearl Harbor was not just about the oil, it was also about getting a strategic advantage on the US by destroying their fleet early. Japan was always going to go towards the Dutch Indies and the Phillipines. If not for the oil, it'd be to integrate them in the Sphere of Co-Prosperity.
Sakhalin oil fields were on Japanese side at that time.
@@nicolasgarant9124 The war in the Pacific was the direct result of three factors. The War in China, US Oil Embargo, and the collapse of Western Europe to the Germans. Without those three issues together, it is doubtful the Anglophile and relatively peacenik Japanese Navy would have pushed for war.
@@nicolasgarant9124 I have to disagree. If Japan was independent from US oil, what need would there be for an invasion of South East Asia? If Japan could win the Sino-Japanese war without foreign resources, it would still take many years to finish the war and many more years of occupation to consolidate the victory. All that with Japan having to fear the Soviet Union from the North. They wouldn't risk loosing China and Manchuria to gain Indonesia and Malaysia. My guess is that if Japan won, the Soviets would have defeated Germany and the Cold War between the US and the Soviets would have started. Japan probably would have aligned itself more with the US in that conflict to protect themselves from the Soviets. Maybe they'd even give Indochina back to France as a symbol of good will, if the US agrees to stay out of Japan's spheres of influence. Not everyone in the Japanese government were blind warhawks. People like Kido Kōichi had a huge amount of influence over the Emperor and he knew war with the US was unwise
Best Christmas gift ever! Thanks Cody!
19:27 the only empire that had realistic chance to continue to this day is the Brazilian Empire, the republican coup only succeeded because the emperor Dom Pedro II allowed it, 2/3 of the generals and 90% of the population was against the republic, even in 1992 with the referendum about the government system, about 30% of the population was in favor of the monarchy, but the republicans postponed the referendum for about a year and basically banned the monarchists for making any propaganda in favor of the monarchy system, also the royal family was prohibited by law to endorse the monarchists, also the referendum was realized in 21 of april, the most brainwashed republican holiday that people had to memorize all the glories of the republic over the "satanist" and "tiranical" empire with an emperor that loved slaves.
10:43 is one of those scenarios that would be fun to explore in a holodeck, but awful to try to piece together with pen and paper. It would have a huge long term impact, but it would also be a complete randomizer since it would permanently change leadership on all levels going forward.
15:15 Alexander I of Serbia wasnt killed by anarchists and neither was Carlos I of Portugal. the former was assassinated by Serb ultranationalists, and the latter was killed by Portugese republicans.
Honestly that more alien version of an empire is what makes the scenario even more interesting, tracking the evolution of a civilization through centuries of new challenges against quantities known to us now but never even dreamed of by the society we're manipulating.
Take Rome for example, a little known fact is that Rome had its own manifest destiny dream, and boy howdy was it a doozy, they believed it was the destiny of Rome to rule everything from Lusitania (Portugal) to Serica, or as we know it today, MOTHER FUCKING CHINA.
Just imagine the history of wars Rome would need to fight to even border China, nevermind conquer it.
The Punic wars would be ancient history compared to the knock down drag out of the Parsic wars.
Integrating Gaul would be a distant memory compared to solidifying control up to the volga before sallying out into central Asia. And again, this is all *the setup* for what Rome intended to do eventually.
Think of it like Trench Crusade, all that's recognizable about this scenario is some place names and geography, half the fun is how in god's name we got here.
4:40
So, small clarification here from a volcano enthusiast, the 536 Volcanic Winter doesn't have a known source. Krakatoa was theorized, but evidence from drilling in the Sundra Strait found that Krakatoa did not erupt in this time frame.
The most lonely eruption is believed currently to have taken place in northeast California, the Aleutian mountains, or Northern Cordilleran Volcanic Province.
Or possibly several of them.
Merry Christmas Cody and to all alternate history hub enthusiasts. Thanks for the Christmas video present
Thank you Cody for another video
Guys, Guys, I got this. I can solve everything. HEAR ME OUT...What if Rome discovers Vaccines...I did it guys I changed everything in a completely reasonable, predictable, and feasible way.
Antibiotics, not vaccines. Most plagues were bacterial.
No Antonine Plague.
No Age of Iron and Rust.
The good times just roll on forever (except for the slaves).
On the note that vikings could never colonize the americas, what is the likelihood of them transmitting enough disease in moderation to allow the locals to build resistances to some big hitters before colonization
As I understand it (having read it in the book 1491, can't recall the author atm), the population in the Americas lacked the genetic diversity to withstand the worst old world plagues no matter when or how gradually they were introduced. The situation was certainly exacerbated in real history by sadly counterproductive cultural practices, like entire villages closely surrounding the sick to support them, and gross misunderstanding of disease - both the indigenous people and the colonizers basically saw plagues as a result of inscrutable divine will and had no real idea of the source or mechanism of their spread. But genetically, the 4 (iirc) haplogroups from which the entire population of the Americas had descended had little to no natural resistance or even adaptability to the highly human-adapted and aggressive diseases that had been festering for millenia on the other side of the globe.
Epidemiologically, the new world was always going to be a tinderbox.
It makes me so sad to think of.
@ieremias77 that's unfortunate
I'd still love to see you explore a scenario where Franz Ferdinand isn't assassinated. Even if it wouldn't prevent WW1 it could delay the start date or shake up the alliances. Italy could join the Central Powers. Russia could be faced with a revolution that prevents its entry into the war. The Ottomans could have enacted reforms and started to bounce back.
Ottomans could stabilize, but I doubt they'd be able to bounce back, there'd be too many outside forces looking to prevent that...
Also, could AH survive in some form? A confederation? A proto-EU with a Monarch? Or perhaps AH joins the Allies, after being invaded by a Central Power Italy? Does this delay Polish reunification? A less harsh Versailles? Even if AH survives for a short while longer, it changes a lot.
@@solsunman383 If Austria is even a little more competent and united, they could have avoided the need to constantly be bailed out by Germany and given them more breathing room, potentially winning the war as Germany can more effectively concentrate its forces.
@@solsunman383 Absolutely it could. The idea of it being a crumbling house of cards is a post-war myth started by post-Hapsburg states and perpetuated/highlighted by British academia.
Italy won't join Central Powers, no matter what.
1. They were dependent on British coal and food imports.
2. They just annexed Lybia, and still fight local partisans.
3. Their fleet was far from ready to fight French or British one.
4. Austria- Hungary IRL didn't agree to give any land except small town of Trentino despite all German pressure.
But Italy could stay neutral, as parliament was against the war. If Giovanni Giolitti stayed as head of government he could strike some neutrality deal with Austria- Hungary.
So a good way to sum up the last two is that things change so much that it stops being Alternate History and simply becomes *Fantasy* History instead. It kind of reminds me of one of your older videos where you tried to predict what it'd be like if Napoleon never took charge...and it just ends along the lines of "history changes so much that predicting anything past the end of the century is kind of pointless".
On the last point, there's a deliciously weird piece of futuristic literature that was featured on the youtube channel Kings and Things that was written _before_ the industrial revolution. The author tries to predict the future a thousand years in advance (while protesting the politics of his time), and it's fascinating to see what he physically can't comprehend with his pre-industrial understanding. On the flip side, it's also striking how many of his criticisms of the politics of his time are still contemporary and surprisingly "modern" to us.
Another issue with the idea of an early Italian unification is that it ignores the fact that external powers would have opposed it. France, Austria, and Spain (during the time periods where Spain and Austria weren't literally ruled by the same guy) all desired influence within the peninsula and would have been quick to militarily oppose anyone trying to bring all of Italy under one banner. It only happened in the 1800s because of strong support from Napoleon III of France, and honestly they got really lucky there because Napoleon III had a strong personal and ideological desire for Italian Unification and pushed for it despite the fact that it cost him a lot more than he got out of it. You could genuinely argue that it was a case of the sovereign pushing their personal projects even though they're harmful to the State's interests.
You just described what happened IRL. So called Italian wars, France, Spain, Papal States, Venice and others fought for influence over the peninsula for hundreds of years. But there was periods when France was busy, like 100 years war, Spain could be busy with Americas colonisation , and Austria was busy fighting in Bohemia or against Ottomans.
Also Cody is wrong about ideological difference, ideas of Italy as art and culture, especially after Renaissance events were wide spread.
I just think people pick wrong candidate as leading force for unification, it should be Visconti Milan, it was biggest kingdom in the peninsula in its peak, or it should be Venice as richest merchant republic with its famous fleet, the Arsenal.
Also you are wrong about Napoleon the 3, he wasn't a fan of United Italy.
Plombiers agreement supposed to free peninsula from Austrian influence, make Sardinia- Piedmont a bigger state with inclusion of Lombardy and part or full Venetia state , but central Italy supposed to become a French puppet state with Napoleons brother Jerome as head of state.
Basically the treaty was broken when people of Modena, Parma and Tuscany rised to demand an unification with Sardinia- Piedmont.
And Napoleon 3 himself broke the treaty by signing early peace treaty of VillaFranca with Austria.
So Plombiers agreement was renegotiated later, as Sardinia gives Savoy and Nice, while France allows unification of kingdom of Sardinia and Central Italian states.
I feel for Justinian
It COULD be done, but nigh impossible to keep it for any more than a few months to a years tops.
because they got much of what they needed, France being all that was left and half of spain.
I feel it was more like "Could have, but would have instantly fallen apart the nano-second he died"
Blame his bad luck
You forgot one, where I get a girl friend
On par with Alien Space Bat
Impossible
At that point, it wouldn't be you. The version that get could a girl would be totally alien.
Something I find interesting about the Gunpowder Plot is that it could have failed even with the explosion happening, because Guy Fawks was trying to dry out the powder WITH A TORCH! The alternate history that creates is the historical mystery of the night Westminster suddenly exploded.
I'd say that your point on 'X Empire never falling' is exactly what makes those scenarios interesting from a creative writing standpoint, for those who want to creatively speculate on and explore a diverged world.
17:50 , an alternate deep voice Cody .
Maybe an even greater question... what if Brian of Nazareth started his own religion, supplanting Christianity? Forget the shoe, follow the gourd!
Merry Christmas brother🙏🏻
What a wonderful christmas gift from our man.
Also, you should do an alt history scenario where Santa's elves tried overthrowing Santa
11:45 the houses of parliament pictured weren't built until the 1800s, 200 years after guy fawkes
Like what if the second half of earth had middle earth, ga’hool, pyrrhia and bowser’s mushroom kingdom instead of just ocean that would be madness because there’d be weird wars like the war on bowser.
Next video suggestion: What if Rome fell during the Crisis of the Third Century?
everyone dies, the end.
stuff happens
Yay!
Gallic Empire 4evah.
It's Charlemagne only earlier and less Christian.
My big problem with this type of video is that a lot of these so called "dumb scenarios" subjects are a lot more interesting and worth exploring than what is deemed a worthy subject of a typical AlternateHistoryHub video: *"What If Napoleon Never Fell? He Would Die Of Stomach Cancer."
*FUCKING THANKS, CODY!* I'm sure your Patreons sleep well at night knowing you pulled an all-nighter for that one! That videos subject was so good, it had to be 10 minutes long and had a guest!1! 😃
18:16 The USSR never lost the space race. The US just set its own target and declared victory. Things changed later on, but the USSR led the way in early space exploration
There were too many things working against Florence doing anything to attempt Italian unification.
Despite all of his talents even someone like Lorenzo de Medici was a poor banker and he lent out too much to people that were powerful enough to just not pay back their loans. Almost ruining the family.
Unlike Venice Florence was an incredibly unstable republic. Power would periodically switch between ever competing families rather than through elected officials. Causing alot of infighting.
And then you’ve got moments such as the rule of Girolamo Savonorola which did no good for Florence. And on top of it sometimes you would have multiple enemy states such as France and the Papal States ganging upon Florence to Put it in its place.
Cody is more powerful than V-sauce, he just doesnt know it uet.
YIPPEE new video
Also Merry Christmas
The last one is actually a larger discussion in science, namely: how important is the discover'er to the discovery? Like some things were just bound to happen, like the discovery of elements, congratz to the person who did it, but it was bound to happen, but then there is other discoveries where it happening definitely jumped forward time, like general relativity. Like without Einstein it would probably still come about, but easily could have taken 50+ years given everyone else at the time was so obsessed with the idea of QM.
Overall its an interesting question of which discoveries were bound to happen because it was their time, and which were massive leaps forward compared to the current state of science
Merry Christmas Cody!
I always wondered what would happen if serpentine blackpowder was discovered by the ancient Egyptians during the Bronze Age during attempts to find better ways to preserve mummies. The metallurgy of the time would've made it challenging to build firearms, but I can see analogues to fire lances & hand gonnes being made. Just never in great numbers due to expense. Pottery grenades maybe but hard to say.
Another that is hard to guess the impact of is "What if the Roman soldiers successfully captured Archimedes instead of killing him when sent to capture him?"
Kaiser Friedrich of Germany never had cancer and ruled for many years.
What If an island the size and land area of the Indian SubContinent appeared in the Indian Ocean
The Japanese could avoided attacking the Us as they didnt actually need any American pacific territory at least not at that point. But it was deemed to risky to invade Allied territory with such a strong US naval and air presence sitting right behind them. A dumber scenario is Japan invading the USSR in 1941 instead
No they need the Philippines which was a US protectorate and we had military personnel there. Also attacking British Malaya and the Dutch East Indies would put them on a warpath with the US as we were already aiding the Allies in Europe through selling weapons and equipment and the painter was looking for an excuse to declare war. He took the opportunity that presented when Pearl Harbor happened, but sooner or later he would have declared war anyways if only to have the U-Boats go open season on American supplies being shipped Britain. With Japan already locked in a war with the UK, the US would follow suit.
Once the Embargo happened, no they couldn't. The need for resources meant they would have attacked territories owned by allies of the US no matter what, so they were pretty much "forced" in their view into attacking the US
This guy has Been dropping solid videos before Sam o nella, all the history teachers, and pretty much any other history UA-camr I can think of
For some reason your last entry reminds me of a short story I can barely recall. The premise was that some crucial piece of tech was actually pretty private, but we somehow failed to discover it. So revolutionary war era types teleport or something to our world trying to conquer it, but we are WAY more technologically advanced than they are and wipe the floor with them.