Wow look at that a new video. This is technically a Part 2, without being a Part 2. If you missed the North American portion. I tried to make it not required viewing but it doesnt hurt. ua-cam.com/video/i4y1U2X5rGE/v-deo.html
It's insane to think that the Seven Years War, a war often not covered in the most basic of world or European history classes, was so influential. We would have seen a completely different New World and a Europe where Germany never rises and the legacy that Napoleon left in OTL never occurred.
@@Tytoalba777 yeah, I find a lot of the time people that complain about not being taught something just weren't paying attention. Obviously you can only prove that with those from your same school but I do believe it's true
In Quebec, (we called it War of Conquest), we only talk about how it affected us in North America, specifically the fall of Quebec, the Battle of Abraham Plains and the surrendering of Montreal (called Ville-Marie at the time). But yeah. This war might have been even more major in shaping our current world than the Great War following a few centuries later.
@@legojedimasterplokoon2173 Admittedly, what's taught in schools differs from place to place, even from teacher to teacher, but it's not like 7YW isn't taught. It's not as focused on as WWII, ARW, or ACW, but then again, what is? (at least in America)
Welcome to how to make history boring. In this episode, we call wars that could change everything after a number that doesn't even stand for how long the war lasted.
I always say that seeing how French English nobility was at the time, England winning would have been a victory for France. The Norman nobility only became English after loosing the 100 Year War. With the huge difference in population and strength of culture, don't be surprised if the English language becomes more and more French or disappear like the Celtic language of old that was replaced by old English. If this country survived, I don't think the Anglos would like the result... The other possibility is that mainland France and England drift apart and there is a rebellion of nobles in the English side. Perhaps the nobility in England do end up adopting English culture.
Henry V would’ve needed to live a lot longer to prevent the instability of his sons “reign” which led to Charles VII recapturing France and the wars of the roses in England.
It really should be said: France between the 7 years war and the Revolution *did* reform. Louis XVI saw that the French state was ready to cave and pushed for reforms. The nobles rejected these reforms, at least most of them.
If i was Louis XVI I would’ve said I’m the king so back down or die and I would execute them (and maybe their family depending on how they react) put someone more loyal, competent and most importantly obedient
@Abraham Caudillo Get mind blown that England was French Colony since 1066 (Sadly this is england now and the conquerors aren't as nice as the Franks ua-cam.com/video/o7ZT_hgeHQI/v-deo.html)
I liked your comment because I get what you're saying but, usually the naming pertains to when the war was officially declared and peace officially made. That's why WW1 ended at 11.00 11th November, but there was still fighting occurring, that isn't usually mentioned, or how the battle of New Orleans happened after the signing of peace, yet the date of the end of the war of 1812 does not match the date of the battle of New Orleans.
@@mikitz see I'd say the war of spanish succession was WW1, Then the seven years war as WW2, the Napolenic wars were WW3, The Great War was WW4 and what I call "the Axis War" (WW2) was WW5
I feel like Germany Reunifying is a constant enough event you could tell what point in history you've accidentally time traveled back to via which incarnation of Germany it is
@@cheeto4027 I think the HRE would unify because the Habsburgs always wanted to do that, and with Prussia out of the way there isn´t really anything anymore that can stop that.
Effectively, Britain becomes Equivalent to Japan in this timeline (an island nation that grows more advanced as the rest of the mainland falls further behind.)
@Preston Jones They sound like good people. I don't suppose they learned how to make people into tea, Soylent Green-style? #731ftw #atrocitiesarejustanumber
Russia might still go after it... Or might cut a deal with France to keep Russia and the Germanic states (Prussia, HRE, Austria-Hungary) off their backs. Edit: Nevermind, they came to the same conclusion.
@@sorcikator993 true, but if you think about it historically going back to its empire-lasting days, Poland has been one of the worst geographically-positioned countries in the world. As big as it got and as rich in agricultural resources as it had been (and even still is today), it always had rather limited access to the oceans that could easily be blockaded by hostile kingdoms and nations, is poor in most other natural resources, and is otherwise a relatively flat area with borders almost universally difficult to defend save for the Carpathians to the south. Especially considering almost every nation that bordered the old Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth/Empire and the major powers bordering Poland post-WWI were hostile. It really wasn’t until the modern Polish state’s joining of NATO in ‘99 that gave it some large degree of security of its place as a long-term independent state.
@Абдульзефир my comment was not a positon backing Poland or saying Poland never aggresively attacked or invaded anyone. It was simply a neutral observation taking into account Poland’s historical geography and its position on how poorer it was in the position of empire building, global trade, defense, and possibilities for overseas colonization. Poor and small-minded analysis on your part. Besides, there’s plenty of other countries and former empires I could make a similar analysis about being positioned in a worser geographical state for empire building and long-term survival.
I think Poland would stiil be lost in this timeline. It was partition because it was so militarily weak, internally divided and economically broke that it just could not defend itself. And First Partition of Poland happend 15 years before French Revolution, so it was not about ideas, but it's weakness and resistance to being dependent to Russia. In this timeline however Prussia would probably be not involved in this, or involved in much smaller way, but Russia would still be the main player, Tzar Catherine might still forced election of Poniatowski and he would be her puppet, Partition could still happend, partially or even fully, maybe later than in over timeline. At that point of time Russia was millitary might, able to mobilize more than 100000 troops, where Poland was 100 years backwards, without proper professional army, with Nobels even more self centered than these from France. Poland was lost. It would be either partition but later, or fully become Russia's vasal/puppet state.
Your discussion of the Industrialization with France and Britain reminds me of the difference between the Japanese and Chinese Governments' response to industrialization in the mid-late 19th century. Japan's Meiji Reformation crushed the high nobles as the lesser nobles embraced industrialization while nobles dragging their feet and forcing the Chinese military to remain disorganized weakened China to the point where Japan was able to win the First Sino-Japanese War. I could even imagine the war between France and Britain being over a client state they were both trying to influence in West Africa like the Ashanti Empire.
As a French, it is a nightmare scenario too. The defeat against the brits lead to terrible events but that made our unique history. Still funny ho Napoleon is depicted as a dictator, he had really big flaws but he still ended a non-stopping permanent paranoiac civil war and defended the country against the whole continent which tried many times to kill any possible social progress in Europe.
@@simoncolin5939 That's not necessarily exclusive; He was both socially progressive AND tyrannical (mainly in occupied regions). Ironically that in the end his efforts hurt France a few decades later, since enlightenment values, resentment and modern artillery strategies enabled the Prussians.
@@einfrankfurter3520 You are exactly right. I was incorrect and distorted the truth. Just tired that he has a bad guy role while Habsburgs were as undemocratic as him, and the british were as kind with natives in colonies as Napoleon with occupied population. Prussia was an exception at that time (i think, idk much of prussian unification history)
Answer to this question: This definitely means that the French are not expelled from Quebec and Canada. This means that the Acadian French never move to Southern Louisiana.
The only way would be if the French rulers provide an incentive specifically for those people, too. Instead of having a literally "nowhere else in the world culture," we'd just be fancy Frenchmen in a swamp
Actually, I'll add a bit more to this. With a French victory in the Seven Years' War, because you do not have Napoleon rise to power, part of North America would still be French-controlled...like everything west of the Mississippi, all the way to Colorado, which, at that time, was ruled by Spain. Mexico never gains independence, as it's independence stems directly from the French Revolution. The same is true for Haiti, which is the only country in OTL that gained independence via a successful slave revolt. But the most interesting thing is that since France wins the war in TAT (The Alternate Timeline), the United States never seeks its own independence. Therefore, Britain controls the colonies, and what is the United States in OTL never exists. Because the US never exists, Jefferson never makes the Louisiana Purchase, nor purchases Florida from Spain. Therefore, North America would be the peacefully-divided continent, not Africa. You would have France controlling the Midwest, Spain controlling the West up to Oregon, and Britain controlling Canada, curling around the northern origination point of the Mississippi River. What would interest me is, would the Pope put a Line of Demarcation in North America, just as did it did in South America? If that's the case, then France could very well be the biggest European power to control the most land in North America.
@@isaiahwelch8066 Why would the Pope be trusted as a mediator between a Protestant country and a Catholic one in that time? The English didn't see the Pope as basically like the Secretary General of the UN the way the Spanish and Portuguese did at the time of demarcation. It probably would've been a bilateral agreement of some kind without a foreign mediator. Edit: added "basically like" for clarity.
@@jeffbenton6183 : Um...what? There was no UN in 1494, when the Line of Demarcation was drawn by the Papacy to split up the colonial claims of Spain and Portugal. I'm thinking that after a war between the French and English in TAT, which would have resulted because of France winning the Seven Years' War, and after the resulting industrialization and development of the railroad, which could have, as a consequence, that the later war would become a stalemate, the Papacy would have taken it as a chance to bring England back into the Catholic fold, by acting as a mediator, ending a war, and settling a territorial dispute. Of course, the French would have listened, albeit begrudgingly, but at the same time, saw the English becoming Catholic as proper behavior. Lastly, I can't help but think that a pope in the 1800s would not have wanted some chance at correcting what happened with Henry VIII. In essence, the Papacy would see a chance to act as a mediator for France and England as a way to increase it's own influence over Europe.
Fun fact, more astronauts have come from Ohio than any other state in America, because something about living in Ohio breeds the sort of person who says, "Yes, I am willing to climb into that metal tube of explosive fuel and set in on fire in an effort to scream away from the life-giving surface of this planet out into the cold, unforgiving void of empty space... *just to get away from fucking Ohio* ..."
You claim to hate us, yet you know that your hate is just mislabeled fear. Fear in knowing what's coming, fear in knowing you cannot stop us. Ohio was here when you were born, it will be here when you die, and only when the twilight sets on the universe will Ohio cease to exist.
TLDR: Britain industrializes before anyone else in Europe. They are even more powerful than before but are largely left out of continental politics. With their navy, they are able to keep France and the other powers stuck in Europe, and colonize almost all of Africa and the other colonies single handedly Rule Britannia intensifies
@@Rahul_G.G. in the scenario in the video Britain keeps naval superiority and would likely be in a better position financially without the American revolution so Britain would most likely remain a strong colonial power
@@stevenandersen6989 France did not adopt the potato from the New World like other European countries. They were still dependent on wheat, there was a bad wheat harvest, French people didn’t have enough enough food...yadda yadda guillotine. This food shortage was a major cause of the French Revolution.
I'm left wondering how much of Latin America would have had their revolutionary wars if not for the French and American revolutions happening earlier. And even if they did, how much of these events would lead to further situations up and down both continents.
Britain also provided a lot of aid in supplies and their navy to the revolutions which they may not have been able to in this scenario. They did this for a few reasons: 1. Their classical liberal outlook 2. To get at their rival spain 3. They thought of it as an 'investment', believing theyd have good relations with the new countries.
8:00 who exactly would get mad at that statement? One lost war wouldn't really affect the British Navy at this time they were cranking out ships on an industrial scale
I think an interesting thing that might’ve happened in this timeline is the unification of Scandinavia. In the 19th century Scandinavia had like Germany and Italy ideas of unification. But this was abruptly halted during the 2nd Schleswig war. Denmark asked for Sweden-Norways help but they refused and thus those ideas just died. But if the German unification of Prussia never happens and then the 2nd Schleswig war never happens then Scandinavia might’ve unified. Just an interesting side note I think
What would the Netherlands look like? This was basically the war that showed the world that Britain wasn’t a nation to be messed with. But if Britain loses, and Napoleon never invades the Netherlands, would the Dutch have kept South Africa?
Based on Cody’s alternate timeline, I doubt it considering that the French still inevitably would’ve lost a future conflict with the British and any allies she had simply due to her more superior navy and foreign military pool she could pull from. And considering any split of colonial control of Africa would’ve been rather violent between the British and French, I think it’s more likely the Dutch Boers in South Africa probably would’ve been drawn into such a conflict on the side of the French and lost control over South Africa decades sooner than they did in their own timeline.
@@davidcopeland5450 On the other hand a more powerful France would probably have nixed the rise of the anti - British Patriot movement in NL so the country would have kept its old alliance with The Brits.
As a Pole, I think I might say something about my country in the XVIIIth Century and in this timeline, so let me spit some things out. 1. After the Great Northern War Poland became essentialy a Russian puppet. Sure, France attempted to help Louis XV 's father-in-law, Stanisław I Leszczyński gain Polish throne (unsuccesfully, in War of the Polish succesion), but by the 1760s Russian influence over Poland was cemented. In fact, king Stanisław II August Poniatowski was elected in 1764 only thanks to him being Catherine the Great's lover and Russian troops surrounding the election sejm, so Poland would most likely be a Russian puppet, not the French one. 2. At this point, Polish political system was a complete mess - elected monarchy (with enormous foreign influence), constantly on the edge of anarchy (with dominant landed aristocracy, magnates, doing whatever they wanted and blocking any reform, liberum veto paralising legislative system and so called "golden noble freedom" limiting monarch's power to almost zero - in fact, Polish nobility used phrase "Polska nierządem stoi" - "Poland is ruled by an anarchy" - as a praise) and with almost non-existing army. Serious reforms were attempted only once country's weakness was made complitely visible with the First Partition of Poland, culminating in proclamation of the first European constitution (3rd May Constitution) and Thadeus Kościuszko's uprising. Without the First Partition (which wouldn't happen because of the Prussia's relative weakness in this timeline - more on that later), reforms would most likely still happen - at the time pro-reform faction in Polish nobility was gaining strength and dominatated the intelectual elites - but slower and theu would be enforced with great caution in order not to dtrike a nerve with the Russians - at least during Catherine the Great's reign - her son was more reform-mimded and even freed some Polish patriots like aformentioned Kościuszko. 3. The main force pushing for the Partitions of Poland (at least - the first one) was Prussia and its king, Frederick the Great. He wanted to connect both parts of his domain (Brandenburg and East Prussia), which was divided by Polish West Prussia with wealthy city of Gdańsk/Danzig. Indeed, with Prussia defeated in the Seven Years War, they would most likely not pressure the Russian for this partition thingy, so Poland indeed remains independent-ish (as a Russian puppet, but still).
Agreed. I was actually expecting a Polish revolution at the start of 19th century in this video, one of the generals creating Polish empire or something.
@@Szpareq If a form of French Revolution occurs in this timeline the revolutionaries will presumably ally with the reforming party in The Commonwealth and be in a better position to help them.
As a French canadian, I thought about it a million times. And my conclusion is always the same: English so much outnumbered the French in AMerica that they would have won the next war.and the ATL becoming pretty much like the OTL.
@@sorcikator993 When I saw one of my ancestors was the "First Farmer" of Quebec and died with equipment requests he made to the Crown left unanswered for years, I realized why so much happened. Paris would've been happier if they could've handled trade without colonization. Would have cost less and still kept them in furs.
I love this series. Thank you Cody for uploading this the day after the Montreal Canadians lost in the Stanley Cup Final. This will help the Francophones and Anglophones (like me an Aglophone Canadian) who watch your videos cheer up and speed up the recovery from the depression that comes with the Montreal Canadians losing the Stanley Cup Final.
Rome would still rise and conquer the greeks, and Iranians would not undergo the neccessary military reforms to stop the Romans get to Persia, allowing them to conquer it.
@@nuclearbomb9483 Europe was like a powder keg at the time. The death of Franz Ferdinand was just the spark needed to ignite it. If Franz Ferdinand doesnt die the war would've happened for some other reason very soon. WW1 could've been prevented, or at least postponed a lot longer if Germany keeps up the Bismarckian order
“This is a world where the French won the Seven Years War.” I felt a great disturbance in the force...as if millions of British voices suddenly cried out in terror
I dunno about that. Without The British victory 7YW we might not have had The American Revolution, so you could argue it was ultimately a bad thing for The Brits.
Nationalism really isn’t a left or right wing thing. Case in point Nazi Germany thought their ethnic group was the most superior bloodline in the world and that a unified German realm (or Reich) should dominate the lesser races The People’s Republic of China thinks their ethnic group is the most superior bloodline in the world and that a unified Chinese realm should dominate the lesser races Definitely not going to call China right wing though. Genocide and ethno-nationalism do not a right winger maketh.
@@wisemankugelmemicus1701 i didn't say it is left or right thing, i meant many people associate it with right and forgets that it was considered a left wing thing at the beginings of the left-right scheme, which means it depends of the context
Cody: I know you want to see map changes. Cody: proceeds to literally NEVER SHOWING OR EXPLAINING ANY SORT OF MAP CHANGE IN THE ENTIRE VIDEO NEVER EVEN EXPLAINING THE PEACE DEALS AT ALL. THANKS, CODY, THAT'S WHAT WE WANTED.
For as long as I've been subbed to this channel for (since just before first alternate countries contest), this is probably one of the best series on the channel. It's super fucking interesting from almost every perspective and could easily find creedence in a Viccy 2 or 3 mod one of these days. THAT ALONE would be worth the price of that game (besides fucking everyone over economically, of course) Amazing work, Cody
@@santiagogarza8121 Yep the region probably retains its hundreds of years of peace and doesn't fall into eternal chaos and suffering. Assuming liberalism doesn't still find a way to control Spain without Napoleon's occupation.
@@darken2417 I mean, the "peace" you refer to came from repression and genocide, while stealing all of their resources to go and kill germans for being protestant
@@santiagogarza8121 1. Most native groups joined the Spanish to aid in conquering the region against the dominant native empires that had been tormenting them for generations. 2. The process of raising people up to feudal society from tribalism although it is a rough process is not repressive compared to their former situation. Hence the Laws of Burgos and subsequent colonial policies. 3. The Spanish unlike the English/Americans did not genocide or pushout the natives, they assimilated them and interbred with them. 4. The "stealing" argument is absolute nonsense. Take a look at any map of Hispanic America and look at how 99% of the cities and roads were built during the colonial era. The colonies were heavily invested into using those resources, and the colonies were considered core territory of Spain. As society develops this required more and more investment to satisfy the needs of growing cities. And this is the hundreds of years of peace compared to being subject to raiding parties every season from tribal neighbors and sacrificed to bloodthirsty flying corn-deities. 5. You mean they used these resources to defend Catholic regions from expansionist Protestant insurgents who would go around destroying precious religious artwork and would lynch priests that tried to have a civil debate with them, like what they did to Saint Fidelis of Sigmaringen.
@@darken2417 1. I know it's more complicated than "stealing" but the infrastructure was only built to take everything from Spain to the colonies and backwards, with no ability to trade between them (there was more trade between Mexico and South America before the conquest than after) 2. If liberalism was the problem, you'd see the same problems as latin america in every liberalized county (wich is all of them) so clearly there is something else involved 3. While in mesoamérica and Peru were intermingled and incorporated, in places were hard to colonize nomadic peoples lived, like northern Mexico and the Llanos in Venezuela their goal was the eradication of the culture and peoples, much like the gringos and british before them. This included forced labour, the kidnapping of children and corporal punishment for speaking in their language, among other nasty business 4.Yes, many peoples joined Cortez willingly to fight the Mexica, but many did so under serious coercion (look up the Cholula masacre) 5. What kind of agreement is the requerimiento? It's basically "You're already our subjects, so surrender or we'll conquer you" that is not a real accord 6. While many of the laws passed by the kings (like Burgos, among others) were beneficial for and protective to the indigenous peoples, the reality on the ground was often quite different than the de iure situation. Most encomenderos and later landholders would regularly abuse and exploit the natives with local authorities regularly turning a blind eye to then (I know the English and french exaggerated this in their propaganda, but it was a real issue) 7. No matter how just you think the 30 year war or the invasion of England were, the truth is that no American from the empire benefited from having the armada at the bottom of the English channel or hundreds of thousands of soldiers and mercenaries rampaging through central Europe while they very much paid for those wars. Also westfalia-like agreement could have been reached a lot sooner, before the burning of cities and villages (that isn't even taking into account the devaluation of all currency in order to pay the soldiers) 8. Even though the Spanish didn't trade slaves directly like the English and Portuguese, they continuously bought african slaves and treated them just as poorly as any other European empire
@@thedude5294 It would be better than a state born from a knight order that is more military than nation to unite it. Man, Everyone's a prussia simp these days.
@@GeldtheGelded I'm just memeing man, don't take it to heart. Austria would still have the same problems Austro-Hungary had in our TL, it's just too multiethnic with no stable glue t9 hold its different people together.
@@thedude5294 consider that a unified HRE controlling the lands of the AHE under, presumably, the Austrian crown would make for a clear and overwhelming ethnically German majority in the Habsburg domain, whereas the Germanic Austrians were a significantly smaller proportion of the AHE's population in our history. Ethnic nationalism would probably still arise at times, but it probably wouldn't be the threat to the ruling ethnic group that it was in the real AHE. But, you know, that's just, like, my opinion, man.
@@thedude5294 Austria always were catholic, this could become a catholic Germany without protestantism somehow
3 роки тому+1
I guess you forgot that an Aristoctratic France can still employ industry. Colbert's reforms did add some industrialisation. It's classical mercantilism, but the central power can still industrialize in a certain maneer.
what if Americans never joined WW1 ? = France wins with england, because french had a massive production of tanks and, before americans come to France, Germans was pushed by French
@Gwyn and Gold yes America wasn’t a superpower yet. There were large scale mutinies in the French Army that had the Americans not arrived it is possible the French line could’ve broke
@@griffinreed9005 There was a mutiny in one place that got quickly put down and protests in some others, it wasn't as unstable as internet comments try to make it out to be. The US troops had to be trained and equipped by the french and english, and it took months to do so. They also brought the Spanish flu with them. The desperate counterattack at the Somme even if successful wouldn't have solved the issue of the blockade starving both people and industry, the Ottomans being out and Austria-Hungary imploding.
Cody you forgot to mention Tsar Peter III's being a fanboy of Fredrick the Great and Fredrick turned the tide of the war against the Austrian using 90k Russian troops
0:00 Real History 1:05 This is the last video continued 1:27 ANglo Colonists 2:25 French Reformation 3:52 Napoleon 4:17 Prussia gets put down 6:28 Poland's Independent Statehood 7:35 Industrial Revolution 11:30 Urban Guilds 8:51 Hush hush hush 9:56 Aristocratic Nobility Enlightenment 12:29 England and France, Grand Colonial Rivals 15:24 16:56 "Well that changed alot" 17:52 Quakers, Ohio
The Revolutions Podcast covers the French Revolution in a very detailed, but easy to understand, way. One of the biggest problems was Louis XVI's vacillating over reform. He wanted reform, but kept changing his mind when presented with solutions. He was also bad at picking advisors. Then the weather turned bad, causing bad harvests, famine, and dissent. Hence the revolution.
I think there's a flaw in this analysis of France. Firstly: yes, the peasantry would definitely not give a crap about any of this, their involvement being always about the lack of food on their plates (and later on the problems with the king or a lack there of, but that's Revolution stuff so we don't care in this timeline). But the dominant class of this century and above all the next, the bourgeoisie, ABSOLUTELY have a say in this and they are not fans of nobles or the backwards laws of the Old Regime (we're taling economy here, but political claims were always on the table). When you say the Third Estate doesn't intervene in this scenario, I think you forget that part of that is this very rich lowborn class that is rising and gaining more and more power in the economy spheres. The class that would -mostly- profit from the abolition of privileges (above all else in the economy and production, again) and who, in the end, did all the beheading (yes, the people and mostly the urban populations do matter in the Revolution, but the bourgeois hold the Assemblée Nationale and later institutions of the constitutional monarchy and subsequent First French Republic). I do believe that reform would happen, but definitely not on the side of the nobility, who is for a huge chunk still stuck in the old ways, just as the clergy was. Maybe it wouldn't be as cut and dry as the Brittish monarchy, but considering the state of the nobility by the end of the century and the inevitable march of industrialisation and liberalisation (kind of the same thing according to some economic historians, actually, I'll develop the reason why I think by the end of the 7YW, it's innevitable later) I think that any reform would still hugely benefit the bourgeois class emboldening them politically as well. And an economically strong and very politically demanding class will probably soon stop asking and begin demanding. So in the end, a slower industrial age BUT DEFINITELY STILL THERE. Because industrialisation walks hand in hand with economic liberalisation which would still very much have grown as the old economic system was crushed by the demands of the new Europe (Brought about by colonization and world-wide trading in the XVIIIth century). I just can't see the weakening aristocrats and guilds of the latter half of the century doing much against the moving world. They'll slow it down, for sure. The war would strengthen the regime, yes but not to the point of keeping old ideas going for so long. Because I think you're wrong about one thing: Brittain isn't the only colonial power of the latter century: France is right behind. And demands for new products and manufacturing, wouldn't cease with a french victory. They'd grow bigger than before, really. Maybe, even with a monarchy at the helm, economic liberalisation would be brought about faster. Because the thing that truly seperates France from its European neighbours in the South and the East is its colonies and above all else its position in the global trade. Now, of course, doctrin is doctrin, but said doctrin was already on the way out by the end of this war and with how powerful the Third State (and by that I mean the Bourgeois, again) Way more competent people than I have explained why the industrial revolution (which they don't like to call like that because it's *not* fast and sudden) happened in the latter half of the XVIIIth century in both France and Brittain and continued all throughout the next century. I'm also not going to downplay the role of the French Revolution. The XIXth century without it is unimaginable. however, it's doubtful that the Old Regime (when it comes to economy at least) would have lasted eternally in the Kingdom of France. Socially, it'd be more of a Britain or maybe Prussia situation, sure, but I doubt the economical changes would have been definitely halted. Hell, Napoleon's end didn't stop it, neither did the restorationists after him. They only slowed the process down somewhat. Also I'd like to say that this comment isn't meant to downplay or say you're wrong, thes scenario you offer is possible (and fascinating too ^^), I just personally think it's unlikely.
Yeah lol I have no idea why we call it the French and Indian war, probably because that’s the only part of the war we experienced, but I heard that Quebec also doesn’t always call it the 7 years war either, so maybe it’s just a new world thing. Also, the name 7 years war doesn’t make sense to me since it was 9 years but there’s probably some historical context behind that.
@@reesespieces2514 People living in the English colonies called it the "French and Indian War" because those were the enemies they were directly fighting on that front--an alliance of French colonists with the indigenous Algonquin Federation. (The English were also allied with another major indigenous federation, of course, but if you want to argue with these people, build a time machine and go back to before they all died.) Also the French/Algonquin vs. English/Iroquois war in Ohio actually started first--two years before the fighting started in Europe--which is both why the fighting in Europe is referred to as the "Seven Years War" and also why some people consider them to be two different (albeit closely related) conflicts. It's kind of like how most people still consider the German invasion of Poland in 1939 to be the beginning of "World War II", even though the "Second Sino-Japanese War" (aka the Chinese front of World War II) had already started in 1937.
@@reesespieces2514 Probably because it is normally taught in American History classes. Therefore, only the implications on America are considered when discussing that particular war. So the European theater is pretty much ignored. In contrast, my HS World History class focused on the European theater of the war since that was more relevant in the worldwide scheme of things.
I feel like things might go better for the africans themselves at that point - if the British treated them like the North American indigenous (which wasn't well but wasn't slavery), and tried to get them as allies against the French, maybe things wouldn't have gone so badly
@@azuresegugio9095 Yes, but you have to remember how much of that genocide was the fact that the natives had never encountered smallpox (whether infection was accidental or intentional it still had a 90% chance of killing a Native American, far less for the European colonists). The Africans, who not only had smallpox, but lived where smallpox originated, were far less susceptible to the disease.
@@prestonjones1653 Yes but there was also a very real cultural genocide, as well as the fact many people were killed directly or forcibly relocated to reservations. Im not sure that would be the case in Africa as it was literally a belief of many that the land was inhospitable to white men, but hypothetically they could have gone through something similar
No. I disagree, based on historical evidence. King George III was, at the time the Declaration of Independence was written, who Jefferson criticized as allowing the Atlantic Slave Trade to continue. This was not included in the finalized draft of the Declaration, as both South Carolina and Virginia opposed it -- so rather than piss off colonies that Jefferson knew the Colonies needed to win the war, he left out the paragraph he had written condemning King George and the slave trade. The original draft of the Declaration was found in a desk drawer in 1947, and is now in the custody of the National Archives. Knowing this, I do not think slavery would have ended as it did in OTL. Rather, I think the British would still see Africans as sub-human, good for nothing more than slaves and cannon fodder. And this continues because without the US Civil War, the ideas put down at the US Founding and the consequential Civil War don't happen. Humans, as a group, rarely ever change their behavior, if they can help it.
@@azuresegugio9095 That is a good point, however even if such a thing was attempted in Africa, I think the Africans, being less vulnerable to European diseases, would have had the numbers to make such a large-scale genocide inconceivable compared to the relative ease with which the Native Americans and Native Austrialians were exterminated and relocated.
You just gave a really good argument for the "medieval stasis" trope that exists in a lot of fiction. The Industrial Revolution is more aptly named than I realized.
As a native Kansan, that is an interesting question. It comes down to when it happened. The conflict started from the Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854 and lasted until 1859. Furthermore, this is a pre-Republican time (Everyone will need temporarily forget about modern Republicans. They were a vastly different thing back then.) and the two main parties where Whig and Democrats, with the Democrats being dominated by pro-slavery Southerners. However, the term 'Bleeding Kansas' was not coined until 1856, so we will kick off the conflict there. Maybe John Brown started his raids a few years earlier. Pierce was the president, a northern Democrat who saw the abolitionist movement as a threat to the union, who signed the above mentioned Act and actively enforced the Fugitive Slave Act in a futile attempt to keep the nation united. If he saw things threatening to boil over, he would have squashed things, possibly in a heavy-handed manner with federal troops. A civil war here would not be a matter of one group not liking the presidential election results and trying to leave the playground before someone could take away their toys. It would be an abolitionist insurrection. We would see more things like John Brown's attack on Harpers Ferry. Abolitionists would begin to believe that the government was just a tool for Southern Slavers and reject such rule. They would possibly radicalize and take more extreme actions would be taken to free the Blacks and foster slave rebellions. The scared Senate, on both sides of the aisle, would pass more laws to restrict things in an attempt to preserve the Union and mobilize more of the army to put down these violent flare-ups. Seeing opportunities, foreign powers could secretly aid groups that furthered their agendas. There probably would not be a unified attempt to secede and form a new country. The moderate Abolitionists would try to keep doing things diplomatically, the extremists would reject them because they no longer trust the government and the Southern landowners would also reject it because they feel it let the extremists off the hook. Eventually, states might try to break off piecemeal, California being the most successful due to distance, or Abolitionists trying to seize territory to found new free countries. The Southerners and Unionists doing what they can to put down Secessionists until they grow tired; it is one thing to fight a war on the open battlefield, but putting out disorganized flashfires and growing discontent is another. Some type of accord is probably reached, possibly granted recognition and land to some of the new entity nations. Whether the former nation will ever reunite will depend on how long it takes for slavery to ultimately fail and how violent it was when it happens. If it takes too long, with new generations of non-U.S. citizens being born who have no memory of that time, or too violent, making the Southern resentment fester, then the American continent would be forever divided. However, that is just one take. Interested in seeing what other people think would happen.
Does anyone else think the Seven Years War should be or should have been known as the First World War? (Edit: I just think it fits the bill quite neatly being literally a global conflict.)
It doen't really involve the whole world but it is the first major intercontinental war. (excluding conflicts in the middle east of course which are often technically intercontinental)
@@arthurbriand2175 I agree to that extent I suppose there wasn’t any clashes along the Yangtze during the Seven Years War, but then again neither did WW1. I feel like both conflicts, WW1 being on a much grander scale regarding equipment, manpower and total loss of life as well as polticsl change, were equal at least in geography. I do agree tho it wasn’t truly a global conflict.
@@enderkatze6129 Not true, the Indian Mughal empire and the native Indians also fought in the war. By this logic, most of WW1 was also European infighting.
Fun fact: America might call it the French Indian war but people from South Carolina call it the Cherokee war because we only fought the g Cherokee and pushed to georgia
It's very easy to see the nobility's unwillingness to innovate and invest in technological progress when looking at 19th century Russia. Landowners by and large were content with their serfs working the fields up until it became glaringly obvious to the TZsar that the country was lagging behind severely. Yet again.
When you pointed out the likelihood of industrial progress in British, (weakned) Prussian and Scandinavian territory it clicked for me that this also maintains conflict lines between the Protestant nations and the Catholic and Eastern Orthodox worlds, and that any major Intra-European conflict we consider in this timeline may be as brutal on sectarian grounds as the 30 Years War or the Iran-Iraq War.
Lt. Colonel George Washington was instrumental in starting the Seven Years War. Then after the British spent a lot of money defending the colonies from France the colonies got pissed that they needed to pay back some of that money. Then the Brits lost the American Revolution because the French supported the Colonies. American Revolution was totally Seven Years War Part II - and the British totally lost the Seven Years War.
Politics absolutely influences your lineage! Me: huh, I wonder why all my Mexican ancestors suddenly jumped from Zacatecas to Spain... oh. Oh right, the Inquisition.
@@santiagogarza8121 sometimes! A lot of people fled Spain (y las Canarias) and went to Mexico to escape the inquisition. You are a Garza -- maybe you are descended from Alonso o Costanza de la Garza! Look for Spain's PARES records if you do your family tree.
Suggestions: "What if: Teutonic Order won the First Battle of Tannenberg (Battle of Grunwald) Or "What If" Prussia hadn't let its Army degenerate after Frederick the Great and won the Battles of Jena-Auerstedt.
Also: no French Revolution-> no Napoleon-> no Peninsular war (alongside with no revolutionary ideals) -> no independentist movements in Spanish America
Very important notion about the guild. In Germany the Prussian reforms of 1812 -which were mainly driven by the defeat at Napoleon's hands- allowed for the first time in its history that a man could choose his own profession. In some parts of Germany like Hamburg these limitations were held up until the mid of the 19th century even though they were exposed to revolutionary ideas. Article 12 of the German constitution (from 1949 mind you) still states that every citizen has the right to chose their pursuit their own career path and profession. I am pretty sure most countries do not have it that specifically in their bill of rights.
Mexico would lose, but it would take some time. US did fight against Pancho Villa (He is from Mexico) in 1916, but his forces got away (they stopped in Jan of 1917, the same month and year as when the Zimmerman Telegram was went). US population in 1917 was about 100 million, while Mexico was 15 million. Training took 6 weeks. US would be involved in Jan of 1917 instead of April of 1917. Assuming the US only need to capture of the capital of Mexico, the war might be over by September of 1917 (gut feeling). As long as US doesn't take any territory and only wants to have Mexico to sign a document stating they won't invade the US again and aid Germany in anyway, then I don't see the way lasting too long. The US might send troops to Europe at the same time, but it would take time for the troops to be large enough on the Eastern front. Once Mexico surrenders, the US would then send all forces to Europe. The war might still end in November of 1918 because of the Kiel mutiny, which triggered a revolt in Germany. So...not much difference. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Expeditionary_Forces
The immigration to the French colonies (especially women) was skyrocketing before the war. By the way, how do you think France would ever Get Poland to be a puppet when it was already a Russian one? And if there were both guild and rural nobles why wouldn't the industrial revolution happen outside the guild?
A lot of the women went over to Nouvelle France courtesy of the Filles du Roi program. The King paid your way over, gave you a chunk of cash if you met a man you were willing to marry, and paid your way home with a smaller but definite stipend if you struck out and got sick of the place.
Reading Malcolm Gladwell's "The Bomber Mafia", near the very end there is an interesting section, where a Japanese man said they (the Japanese) should thank LeMay for the firebombing of Japan and the atomic bombs for forcing them to surrender. That the idea (in his mind) that without the surrender, the Russians invade Japan, and America invade as well, and end up turning Japan into a North/South similar to Korea and similar to West/East Germany. An alt-history idea of what would have happened if Haywood Hansell wasn't replaced by Curtis LeMay, and he keeps attempting to use the B-29s to attack Industrial and Military complexes rather than LeMay's indiscriminate firebombing with napalm. Even segue into if America doesn't drop the A-Bombs on Japan. What happens with an invasion of Japan with Russia and America and how it all plays out. Thanks for the consideration.
Wow look at that a new video. This is technically a Part 2, without being a Part 2. If you missed the North American portion. I tried to make it not required viewing but it doesnt hurt. ua-cam.com/video/i4y1U2X5rGE/v-deo.html
Thanks for this vid
This is epic
@Abraham Caudillo epic
@Abraham Caudillo e p i c
C I P E
It's insane to think that the Seven Years War, a war often not covered in the most basic of world or European history classes, was so influential. We would have seen a completely different New World and a Europe where Germany never rises and the legacy that Napoleon left in OTL never occurred.
Was it not covered? I learned about it in some form or another in 4th, 8th, 9th, and 11th grade
If you think it's not covered in history classes, you need to pay more attention in history class.
@@Tytoalba777 yeah, I find a lot of the time people that complain about not being taught something just weren't paying attention. Obviously you can only prove that with those from your same school but I do believe it's true
In Quebec, (we called it War of Conquest), we only talk about how it affected us in North America, specifically the fall of Quebec, the Battle of Abraham Plains and the surrendering of Montreal (called Ville-Marie at the time).
But yeah. This war might have been even more major in shaping our current world than the Great War following a few centuries later.
@@legojedimasterplokoon2173 Admittedly, what's taught in schools differs from place to place, even from teacher to teacher, but it's not like 7YW isn't taught.
It's not as focused on as WWII, ARW, or ACW, but then again, what is? (at least in America)
I hope you’re not giving the French Canadians up here in Quebec some interesting ideas...
After how the Habs failed I could see it happening
FREE QUEBEC !!!!!!!!! 🇲🇶🇲🇶🇲🇶🇲🇶
Or Louisiana Cajuns
Hell no they make the best poutine
@@TempleofBrendaSong Cajun Louisiana would be cool asf tho
“After Nine years… the Seven Years War…”
Hold up.
Just wait till you hear about the hundreds years war
The fighting in America began before the offical declaration of war.
@@thepredator9002 133 or 113 years for that one, right?
@@TonySki 116 and about a 3rd
Welcome to how to make history boring. In this episode, we call wars that could change everything after a number that doesn't even stand for how long the war lasted.
We’d love to see: “What if England Won the 100 Years War” by successfully uniting the Crowns of England & France under Henry V / Henry VI.
Scenario where Henry V dies even a year later would be extremely interesting
I always say that seeing how French English nobility was at the time, England winning would have been a victory for France.
The Norman nobility only became English after loosing the 100 Year War.
With the huge difference in population and strength of culture, don't be surprised if the English language becomes more and more French or disappear like the Celtic language of old that was replaced by old English.
If this country survived, I don't think the Anglos would like the result...
The other possibility is that mainland France and England drift apart and there is a rebellion of nobles in the English side. Perhaps the nobility in England do end up adopting English culture.
Henry V would’ve needed to live a lot longer to prevent the instability of his sons “reign” which led to Charles VII recapturing France and the wars of the roses in England.
It would be a giant french speaking empire. I guess it's better for the english to have lost the 100y war
@@Perrirodan1 Exactly. Ironically, the biggest loss France ever suffered has a society/culture/country, was to win the 100 Years war
It really should be said: France between the 7 years war and the Revolution *did* reform. Louis XVI saw that the French state was ready to cave and pushed for reforms. The nobles rejected these reforms, at least most of them.
yes
The King refused the constitution, it was the nail in his coffin.
If i was Louis XVI I would’ve said I’m the king so back down or die and I would execute them (and maybe their family depending on how they react) put someone more loyal, competent and most importantly obedient
@Jean Sanchez yeah 😂 Ik bro I just wanted to make a case but honestly I would’ve ignored them and made it law
@@emperorrasheed4177 then you would have had either the estates wholly ignoring said law or a civil war once you tried to enforce it
"The money you have gives you freedom; the money you pursue enslaves you"
- Jean-Jacques Rousseau
Woah that quote is badass
Yeah peasants! How dare you want more than a loaf of bread a day! The money you have gives you freedom!
@@ssik9460 yes
It seems like a lot of people don't understand the meaning of this quote.
@@ssik9460 Considering Rousseau's character, this remark of yours really is out of character.
I find it funny how world history was essentially determined by two neighbors who hated each other
@Abraham Caudillo Yeah, starting from at least Egypt vs Hittites. Probably earlier too.
Everyone vs Israelites….
usa vs ussr
Texas vs California
To sum it up: human tribalism
Every British person's greatest nightmare, French Hegemony.
"person"
Me , a Brit: heavy breathing
Not only Brits, German and Russian people will have a few things to add to that
Every rational person or bri*ish "person"'s worst nightmare
@Abraham Caudillo Get mind blown that England was French Colony since 1066
(Sadly this is england now and the conquerors aren't as nice as the Franks ua-cam.com/video/o7ZT_hgeHQI/v-deo.html)
Europeans deciding what to name a war :
A war that lasted 9 years : seven years war
A war that last 116 years : the hundred years war
I liked your comment because I get what you're saying but, usually the naming pertains to when the war was officially declared and peace officially made. That's why WW1 ended at 11.00 11th November, but there was still fighting occurring, that isn't usually mentioned, or how the battle of New Orleans happened after the signing of peace, yet the date of the end of the war of 1812 does not match the date of the battle of New Orleans.
The thirty years war is kind of an exception
Although I would call the Seven Years War WWI, meaning we're now waiting for the fourth one to happen.
@@mikitz see I'd say the war of spanish succession was WW1,
Then the seven years war as WW2, the Napolenic wars were WW3,
The Great War was WW4 and what I call "the Axis War" (WW2) was WW5
And let's not forget the Three Hundred and Thirty Five Years' War, which everyone forgot to fight, thus not really making it a war.
So... In a universe where Britain loses the Seven Years War, Britain still, eventually, wins... Nice.
*Rule Britannia intensifies*
@@Jediben001 *British Grenadier March noises*
Of course. First rule of British: They never ever ever will be slaves. ;)
Yea, but this time without Germany and with Poland
Truth is, the game was rigged from the start
"Spain has had it since the 1700..."
*Me, an spaniard*
"No, no, he has a point"
I feel your pain, good sir.
:/
I live in a state of Spain... without the S
E
Germany: You cant just not make me Unify. I AM INEVITABLE.
I feel like Germany Reunifying is a constant enough event you could tell what point in history you've accidentally time traveled back to via which incarnation of Germany it is
They probably would eventually but it would be much more delayed by the HRE and Prussias defeat
@@cheeto4027 I think the HRE would unify because the Habsburgs always wanted to do that, and with Prussia out of the way there isn´t really anything anymore that can stop that.
@@felixjohnsens3201 Bavaria probably, they're pretty cozy with the french
There's a scary thought: without a unified Germany, we wouldn't have RAMMSTEIN!
Ah yes, the Seven Years War. A war that lasted nine years.
@Abraham Caudillo epic
@Abraham Caudillo epic
@Abraham Caudillo C I P E
@@MiserableMapGames That sounds like a slur.
Simple history actually said that
Using Communist Tim Curry as the symbol of communism made me laugh.
Me, too!
SCHPAYHSE!
He is phasing out Stalin on being the face of communism
I saw him going to Space underneath
SPACE!
Effectively, Britain becomes Equivalent to Japan in this timeline (an island nation that grows more advanced as the rest of the mainland falls further behind.)
British Unit 731 makes a visit to the Netherlands.
@@prestonjones1653 *Oh no*
@Preston Jones They sound like good people. I don't suppose they learned how to make people into tea, Soylent Green-style?
#731ftw #atrocitiesarejustanumber
@@prestonjones1653 Ravage(dont want big daddy UA-cam to delete) of Paris.
Little do people know, Britain helped Japan modernize itself and become a global power.
William Adams: English samurai
All I know is, that Poland finally catches a break in this timeline. For once.
I always feel bad for Poland. They always appear as the victims of someone bigger in history.
Russia might still go after it... Or might cut a deal with France to keep Russia and the Germanic states (Prussia, HRE, Austria-Hungary) off their backs. Edit: Nevermind, they came to the same conclusion.
@@sorcikator993 true, but if you think about it historically going back to its empire-lasting days, Poland has been one of the worst geographically-positioned countries in the world. As big as it got and as rich in agricultural resources as it had been (and even still is today), it always had rather limited access to the oceans that could easily be blockaded by hostile kingdoms and nations, is poor in most other natural resources, and is otherwise a relatively flat area with borders almost universally difficult to defend save for the Carpathians to the south. Especially considering almost every nation that bordered the old Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth/Empire and the major powers bordering Poland post-WWI were hostile. It really wasn’t until the modern Polish state’s joining of NATO in ‘99 that gave it some large degree of security of its place as a long-term independent state.
@Абдульзефир my comment was not a positon backing Poland or saying Poland never aggresively attacked or invaded anyone. It was simply a neutral observation taking into account Poland’s historical geography and its position on how poorer it was in the position of empire building, global trade, defense, and possibilities for overseas colonization. Poor and small-minded analysis on your part. Besides, there’s plenty of other countries and former empires I could make a similar analysis about being positioned in a worser geographical state for empire building and long-term survival.
I think Poland would stiil be lost in this timeline. It was partition because it was so militarily weak, internally divided and economically broke that it just could not defend itself. And First Partition of Poland happend 15 years before French Revolution, so it was not about ideas, but it's weakness and resistance to being dependent to Russia. In this timeline however Prussia would probably be not involved in this, or involved in much smaller way, but Russia would still be the main player, Tzar Catherine might still forced election of Poniatowski and he would be her puppet, Partition could still happend, partially or even fully, maybe later than in over timeline. At that point of time Russia was millitary might, able to mobilize more than 100000 troops, where Poland was 100 years backwards, without proper professional army, with Nobels even more self centered than these from France. Poland was lost. It would be either partition but later, or fully become Russia's vasal/puppet state.
Your discussion of the Industrialization with France and Britain reminds me of the difference between the Japanese and Chinese Governments' response to industrialization in the mid-late 19th century. Japan's Meiji Reformation crushed the high nobles as the lesser nobles embraced industrialization while nobles dragging their feet and forcing the Chinese military to remain disorganized weakened China to the point where Japan was able to win the First Sino-Japanese War. I could even imagine the war between France and Britain being over a client state they were both trying to influence in West Africa like the Ashanti Empire.
There were no nobles in China
@mint8648 really?
"If you haven't watched that video, here's a quick recap" *poker ad starts* hmm...
lol
That monthly fee? Totally worth it for no ads.
France: Becomes the world hegemon
British and German people: *Screaming profusely in the background
But this video specifically lays out why that simply couldn't happen
@@Red-hh7dm yeah, if anything the video basically makes it sound like Britain is the single world power
@@memenecromancer4417 You mean was?
@@BatCostumeGuy what?
@@memenecromancer4417 You said is, Britain is no longer the single world power, should've used was.
"France had stumbled, but in the end, was victorious"
Truly, a nightmare scenario.
@Shaan Keole I mean that's basically a tldr of this timeline.
@Shaan Keole How creative
As a French, it is a nightmare scenario too.
The defeat against the brits lead to terrible events but that made our unique history.
Still funny ho Napoleon is depicted as a dictator, he had really big flaws but he still ended a non-stopping permanent paranoiac civil war and defended the country against the whole continent which tried many times to kill any possible social progress in Europe.
@@simoncolin5939 That's not necessarily exclusive; He was both socially progressive AND tyrannical (mainly in occupied regions). Ironically that in the end his efforts hurt France a few decades later, since enlightenment values, resentment and modern artillery strategies enabled the Prussians.
@@einfrankfurter3520 You are exactly right.
I was incorrect and distorted the truth.
Just tired that he has a bad guy role while Habsburgs were as undemocratic as him, and the british were as kind with natives in colonies as Napoleon with occupied population. Prussia was an exception at that time (i think, idk much of prussian unification history)
Answer to this question: This definitely means that the French are not expelled from Quebec and Canada. This means that the Acadian French never move to Southern Louisiana.
The only way would be if the French rulers provide an incentive specifically for those people, too. Instead of having a literally "nowhere else in the world culture," we'd just be fancy Frenchmen in a swamp
So if France won the Seven Years' War, we wouldn't have jambalaya? Nuts to that. All things considered, it's a good thing they lost.
Actually, I'll add a bit more to this.
With a French victory in the Seven Years' War, because you do not have Napoleon rise to power, part of North America would still be French-controlled...like everything west of the Mississippi, all the way to Colorado, which, at that time, was ruled by Spain. Mexico never gains independence, as it's independence stems directly from the French Revolution. The same is true for Haiti, which is the only country in OTL that gained independence via a successful slave revolt.
But the most interesting thing is that since France wins the war in TAT (The Alternate Timeline), the United States never seeks its own independence. Therefore, Britain controls the colonies, and what is the United States in OTL never exists. Because the US never exists, Jefferson never makes the Louisiana Purchase, nor purchases Florida from Spain. Therefore, North America would be the peacefully-divided continent, not Africa. You would have France controlling the Midwest, Spain controlling the West up to Oregon, and Britain controlling Canada, curling around the northern origination point of the Mississippi River.
What would interest me is, would the Pope put a Line of Demarcation in North America, just as did it did in South America? If that's the case, then France could very well be the biggest European power to control the most land in North America.
@@isaiahwelch8066 Why would the Pope be trusted as a mediator between a Protestant country and a Catholic one in that time? The English didn't see the Pope as basically like the Secretary General of the UN the way the Spanish and Portuguese did at the time of demarcation. It probably would've been a bilateral agreement of some kind without a foreign mediator.
Edit: added "basically like" for clarity.
@@jeffbenton6183 : Um...what? There was no UN in 1494, when the Line of Demarcation was drawn by the Papacy to split up the colonial claims of Spain and Portugal.
I'm thinking that after a war between the French and English in TAT, which would have resulted because of France winning the Seven Years' War, and after the resulting industrialization and development of the railroad, which could have, as a consequence, that the later war would become a stalemate, the Papacy would have taken it as a chance to bring England back into the Catholic fold, by acting as a mediator, ending a war, and settling a territorial dispute. Of course, the French would have listened, albeit begrudgingly, but at the same time, saw the English becoming Catholic as proper behavior. Lastly, I can't help but think that a pope in the 1800s would not have wanted some chance at correcting what happened with Henry VIII.
In essence, the Papacy would see a chance to act as a mediator for France and England as a way to increase it's own influence over Europe.
Oh Christ. If Britain lost, the future would be quite interesting.
*bleak
They will lose in 3 days.
Lot of Frogs running around...
This video proves even when we loose britain is better than france
@@AxIoS113 you mean no more frogs running around, they're all dead
Therapist: Cody never existing isn't real, it can't hurt you
Cody never existing 18:34:
"...wouldn't exist, like a lot of other Ohio residents." Don't threaten us with a good time.
Fun fact, more astronauts have come from Ohio than any other state in America, because something about living in Ohio breeds the sort of person who says, "Yes, I am willing to climb into that metal tube of explosive fuel and set in on fire in an effort to scream away from the life-giving surface of this planet out into the cold, unforgiving void of empty space... *just to get away from fucking Ohio* ..."
@@JimRFF as someone from ohio yes
You claim to hate us, yet you know that your hate is just mislabeled fear. Fear in knowing what's coming, fear in knowing you cannot stop us. Ohio was here when you were born, it will be here when you die, and only when the twilight sets on the universe will Ohio cease to exist.
@@jacksonpaul7279 this makes me want to got to war with Michigan.
TLDR: Britain industrializes before anyone else in Europe. They are even more powerful than before but are largely left out of continental politics. With their navy, they are able to keep France and the other powers stuck in Europe, and colonize almost all of Africa and the other colonies single handedly
Rule Britannia intensifies
"Woah, the British had some cool new stuff, maybe we can follow them?"
"Fuck Britain, let's dance all day long"
How British industrialised as fast as they did when they don't have their resources from the colonies?
@@Abhishek-sr2pu one word. India
@@joecampbell46 but how would India be conquered if the french won and mostly likely destroyed the EIC
@@Rahul_G.G. in the scenario in the video Britain keeps naval superiority and would likely be in a better position financially without the American revolution so Britain would most likely remain a strong colonial power
And I was just reading a book earlier this month about the Seven Years War.
An alternate history?
@Abraham Caudillo n i c e
I read one by Walter borneman in may
Name or recommendations?
@@BatCostumeGuy I think it should be left to AlternateHistoryHub to decide recommendations.
So, are we going to talk “what if France adopted the potato?”
OH GOD I WANT TO TALK ABOUT THIS.
Huh?
@@stevenandersen6989 France did not adopt the potato from the New World like other European countries.
They were still dependent on wheat, there was a bad wheat harvest, French people didn’t have enough enough food...yadda yadda guillotine.
This food shortage was a major cause of the French Revolution.
@@dendostar5436 P O T A T O
French fries would actually be French
@@GodwynDi Oh gosh, that was clever.
This reinforces my belief that the 7 Years War/French and Indian War is the most important conflict if not in history then modern history
@@CARILYNF typical french and brits
Yes it was influential, but ww1 and ww2 have had much more impact.
Eastern world: two western countries are in war, so?
Top 4 with franco-prussia war, WW1, WW2
@@godlovesyou1995 to be fair those couldn’t have happened without the seven years war, atleast not in the way we think of them
Just helping this get more interactions in the algorithm, move along
8:38 "Make temporary allies"
Sounds like my typical EU4 game.
Starts as Austria in 1444
Royal marriage anybody
Claim throne
Declare war
Get personal union
Repeat until 1820.
The very historically acurate part of the game
"Make temporary allies"?
You mean vassals?
I'm left wondering how much of Latin America would have had their revolutionary wars if not for the French and American revolutions happening earlier. And even if they did, how much of these events would lead to further situations up and down both continents.
And, would Maximilian not be in charge of Mexico, so no Cinco de Mayo?
Why would you take away one of Texas' favorite celebrations?
Also Spain would remain a secondary power for a long time, kind of like the ottomans
Brazilian Republican Revolution doesn't happen and Brazil keeps their identity instead of trying to copy USA all the time. A glorious timeline
Britain also provided a lot of aid in supplies and their navy to the revolutions which they may not have been able to in this scenario. They did this for a few reasons:
1. Their classical liberal outlook
2. To get at their rival spain
3. They thought of it as an 'investment', believing theyd have good relations with the new countries.
@@godlovesyou1995 hey at least they got 1 friend
8:00 who exactly would get mad at that statement? One lost war wouldn't really affect the British Navy at this time they were cranking out ships on an industrial scale
I think an interesting thing that might’ve happened in this timeline is the unification of Scandinavia. In the 19th century Scandinavia had like Germany and Italy ideas of unification. But this was abruptly halted during the 2nd Schleswig war. Denmark asked for Sweden-Norways help but they refused and thus those ideas just died. But if the German unification of Prussia never happens and then the 2nd Schleswig war never happens then Scandinavia might’ve unified.
Just an interesting side note I think
I laughed so hard when he said "the map changes the stuff you guys like."🤣🤣🤣
"the map changes, the stuff you guys like"
Yep, same reason I love the Total War franchise.
(Laughs in Medieval 2) This is true!
What would the Netherlands look like? This was basically the war that showed the world that Britain wasn’t a nation to be messed with. But if Britain loses, and Napoleon never invades the Netherlands, would the Dutch have kept South Africa?
Based on Cody’s alternate timeline, I doubt it considering that the French still inevitably would’ve lost a future conflict with the British and any allies she had simply due to her more superior navy and foreign military pool she could pull from. And considering any split of colonial control of Africa would’ve been rather violent between the British and French, I think it’s more likely the Dutch Boers in South Africa probably would’ve been drawn into such a conflict on the side of the French and lost control over South Africa decades sooner than they did in their own timeline.
Ngl a Dutch south Africa is a better scenario then a British one
@@davidcopeland5450
On the other hand a more powerful France would probably have nixed the rise of the anti - British Patriot movement in NL so the country would have kept its old alliance with The Brits.
@@Jim-lg8sf well If South Africa was a full-blown Dutch settler colony, that would be interesting.
@shzarmai South Africa only exists from a bunch of countries the British forced together
As a Pole, I think I might say something about my country in the XVIIIth Century and in this timeline, so let me spit some things out.
1. After the Great Northern War Poland became essentialy a Russian puppet. Sure, France attempted to help Louis XV 's father-in-law, Stanisław I Leszczyński gain Polish throne (unsuccesfully, in War of the Polish succesion), but by the 1760s Russian influence over Poland was cemented. In fact, king Stanisław II August Poniatowski was elected in 1764 only thanks to him being Catherine the Great's lover and Russian troops surrounding the election sejm, so Poland would most likely be a Russian puppet, not the French one.
2. At this point, Polish political system was a complete mess - elected monarchy (with enormous foreign influence), constantly on the edge of anarchy (with dominant landed aristocracy, magnates, doing whatever they wanted and blocking any reform, liberum veto paralising legislative system and so called "golden noble freedom" limiting monarch's power to almost zero - in fact, Polish nobility used phrase "Polska nierządem stoi" - "Poland is ruled by an anarchy" - as a praise) and with almost non-existing army. Serious reforms were attempted only once country's weakness was made complitely visible with the First Partition of Poland, culminating in proclamation of the first European constitution (3rd May Constitution) and Thadeus Kościuszko's uprising. Without the First Partition (which wouldn't happen because of the Prussia's relative weakness in this timeline - more on that later), reforms would most likely still happen - at the time pro-reform faction in Polish nobility was gaining strength and dominatated the intelectual elites - but slower and theu would be enforced with great caution in order not to dtrike a nerve with the Russians - at least during Catherine the Great's reign - her son was more reform-mimded and even freed some Polish patriots like aformentioned Kościuszko.
3. The main force pushing for the Partitions of Poland (at least - the first one) was Prussia and its king, Frederick the Great. He wanted to connect both parts of his domain (Brandenburg and East Prussia), which was divided by Polish West Prussia with wealthy city of Gdańsk/Danzig. Indeed, with Prussia defeated in the Seven Years War, they would most likely not pressure the Russian for this partition thingy, so Poland indeed remains independent-ish (as a Russian puppet, but still).
Agreed. I was actually expecting a Polish revolution at the start of 19th century in this video, one of the generals creating Polish empire or something.
@@Szpareq
If a form of French Revolution occurs in this timeline the revolutionaries will presumably ally with the reforming party in The Commonwealth and be in a better position to help them.
As a French canadian, I thought about it a million times. And my conclusion is always the same: English so much outnumbered the French in AMerica that they would have won the next war.and the ATL becoming pretty much like the OTL.
And we weren't viewed as valuable enough to France so they would try to, I don't know, send more people and allow us to develop so it wasn't an issue.
@@sorcikator993 When I saw one of my ancestors was the "First Farmer" of Quebec and died with equipment requests he made to the Crown left unanswered for years, I realized why so much happened. Paris would've been happier if they could've handled trade without colonization. Would have cost less and still kept them in furs.
I love this series. Thank you Cody for uploading this the day after the Montreal Canadians lost in the Stanley Cup Final. This will help the Francophones and Anglophones (like me an Aglophone Canadian) who watch your videos cheer up and speed up the recovery from the depression that comes with the Montreal Canadians losing the Stanley Cup Final.
Glad to see you're pushing out more content, always an interesting watch
Here is one idea for the clip: What if Alexander the Great failed to conquer Persia
Rome would still rise and conquer the greeks, and Iranians would not undergo the neccessary military reforms to stop the Romans get to Persia, allowing them to conquer it.
@@thedude5294 Tell me more about these reforms, please. Also, are you talking about something the Parthians did or the Sasanians?
Well he'd probably won't be called the great
What if Franz Ferdinand got to implement his reforms in Austria-Hungary?
WW1 still happens very soon so he most likely wouldnt have had a chance to do so
@@agytamas42 but what if he doesn't die?
@@nuclearbomb9483 Europe was like a powder keg at the time. The death of Franz Ferdinand was just the spark needed to ignite it. If Franz Ferdinand doesnt die the war would've happened for some other reason very soon. WW1 could've been prevented, or at least postponed a lot longer if Germany keeps up the Bismarckian order
Amazing how this channel manages to cover so much history that my college professors simply glance over.
I had a whole assignment on the Battle of Abraham. Just thinking about the 7 years' war makes my skin crawl.
“This is a world where the French won the Seven Years War.”
I felt a great disturbance in the force...as if millions of British voices suddenly cried out in terror
I dunno about that.
Without The British victory 7YW we might not have had The American Revolution, so you could argue it was ultimately a bad thing for The Brits.
People use to forget that once nationalism was thought as a "left wing" thing in opposition to the feudal-familiar relations
Nationalism really isn’t a left or right wing thing. Case in point
Nazi Germany thought their ethnic group was the most superior bloodline in the world and that a unified German realm (or Reich) should dominate the lesser races
The People’s Republic of China thinks their ethnic group is the most superior bloodline in the world and that a unified Chinese realm should dominate the lesser races
Definitely not going to call China right wing though. Genocide and ethno-nationalism do not a right winger maketh.
@@wisemankugelmemicus1701 i didn't say it is left or right thing, i meant many people associate it with right and forgets that it was considered a left wing thing at the beginings of the left-right scheme, which means it depends of the context
>france succeeds in anything
cursed timeline
True
Poland lives, Germany doesn't, Colonialism doesn't go into Overdrive and Britain still wins in the End. Why is this cursed?
@@CARILYNF I See this as an absolute win
I hate to break it to you, France won the American Revolutionary War.
You do know that france has won the most wars out of anyone in the world right?
Cody: I know you want to see map changes.
Cody: proceeds to literally NEVER SHOWING OR EXPLAINING ANY SORT OF MAP CHANGE IN THE ENTIRE VIDEO NEVER EVEN EXPLAINING THE PEACE DEALS AT ALL.
THANKS, CODY, THAT'S WHAT WE WANTED.
For as long as I've been subbed to this channel for (since just before first alternate countries contest), this is probably one of the best series on the channel. It's super fucking interesting from almost every perspective and could easily find creedence in a Viccy 2 or 3 mod one of these days. THAT ALONE would be worth the price of that game (besides fucking everyone over economically, of course)
Amazing work, Cody
Sad he didn't talk about the ottomans and Italians and papal states considering history would be vastly different for them
Also all of latin america
@@santiagogarza8121
Yep the region probably retains its hundreds of years of peace and doesn't fall into eternal chaos and suffering. Assuming liberalism doesn't still find a way to control Spain without Napoleon's occupation.
@@darken2417 I mean, the "peace" you refer to came from repression and genocide, while stealing all of their resources to go and kill germans for being protestant
@@santiagogarza8121
1. Most native groups joined the Spanish to aid in conquering the region against the dominant native empires that had been tormenting them for generations.
2. The process of raising people up to feudal society from tribalism although it is a rough process is not repressive compared to their former situation. Hence the Laws of Burgos and subsequent colonial policies.
3. The Spanish unlike the English/Americans did not genocide or pushout the natives, they assimilated them and interbred with them.
4. The "stealing" argument is absolute nonsense. Take a look at any map of Hispanic America and look at how 99% of the cities and roads were built during the colonial era. The colonies were heavily invested into using those resources, and the colonies were considered core territory of Spain. As society develops this required more and more investment to satisfy the needs of growing cities. And this is the hundreds of years of peace compared to being subject to raiding parties every season from tribal neighbors and sacrificed to bloodthirsty flying corn-deities.
5. You mean they used these resources to defend Catholic regions from expansionist Protestant insurgents who would go around destroying precious religious artwork and would lynch priests that tried to have a civil debate with them, like what they did to Saint Fidelis of Sigmaringen.
@@darken2417
1. I know it's more complicated than "stealing" but the infrastructure was only built to take everything from Spain to the colonies and backwards, with no ability to trade between them (there was more trade between Mexico and South America before the conquest than after)
2. If liberalism was the problem, you'd see the same problems as latin america in every liberalized county (wich is all of them) so clearly there is something else involved
3. While in mesoamérica and Peru were intermingled and incorporated, in places were hard to colonize nomadic peoples lived, like northern Mexico and the Llanos in Venezuela their goal was the eradication of the culture and peoples, much like the gringos and british before them. This included forced labour, the kidnapping of children and corporal punishment for speaking in their language, among other nasty business
4.Yes, many peoples joined Cortez willingly to fight the Mexica, but many did so under serious coercion (look up the Cholula masacre)
5. What kind of agreement is the requerimiento? It's basically "You're already our subjects, so surrender or we'll conquer you" that is not a real accord
6. While many of the laws passed by the kings (like Burgos, among others) were beneficial for and protective to the indigenous peoples, the reality on the ground was often quite different than the de iure situation. Most encomenderos and later landholders would regularly abuse and exploit the natives with local authorities regularly turning a blind eye to then (I know the English and french exaggerated this in their propaganda, but it was a real issue)
7. No matter how just you think the 30 year war or the invasion of England were, the truth is that no American from the empire benefited from having the armada at the bottom of the English channel or hundreds of thousands of soldiers and mercenaries rampaging through central Europe while they very much paid for those wars. Also westfalia-like agreement could have been reached a lot sooner, before the burning of cities and villages (that isn't even taking into account the devaluation of all currency in order to pay the soldiers)
8. Even though the Spanish didn't trade slaves directly like the English and Portuguese, they continuously bought african slaves and treated them just as poorly as any other European empire
I like how even in the best scenario Poland still gets a puppet monarchy
"There are many what if austria united Germany scenarios" Dude there are too few no cap
Good. An Austria led Germany would be the most cursed thing ever.
@@thedude5294 It would be better than a state born from a knight order that is more military than nation to unite it.
Man, Everyone's a prussia simp these days.
@@GeldtheGelded I'm just memeing man, don't take it to heart. Austria would still have the same problems Austro-Hungary had in our TL, it's just too multiethnic with no stable glue t9 hold its different people together.
@@thedude5294 consider that a unified HRE controlling the lands of the AHE under, presumably, the Austrian crown would make for a clear and overwhelming ethnically German majority in the Habsburg domain, whereas the Germanic Austrians were a significantly smaller proportion of the AHE's population in our history. Ethnic nationalism would probably still arise at times, but it probably wouldn't be the threat to the ruling ethnic group that it was in the real AHE. But, you know, that's just, like, my opinion, man.
@@thedude5294 Austria always were catholic, this could become a catholic Germany without protestantism somehow
I guess you forgot that an Aristoctratic France can still employ industry. Colbert's reforms did add some industrialisation. It's classical mercantilism, but the central power can still industrialize in a certain maneer.
What if you did a “what if Americans never joined WW1” or “What if King Henry V lived/What if England won the Hundred Years’ War”
What if Edward VI lived long enough to make England Calvinist?
what if Americans never joined WW1 ? = France wins with england, because french had a massive production of tanks and, before americans come to France, Germans was pushed by French
Stop to think you saved the french in the ww1
@Gwyn and Gold yes America wasn’t a superpower yet. There were large scale mutinies in the French Army that had the Americans not arrived it is possible the French line could’ve broke
@@griffinreed9005 There was a mutiny in one place that got quickly put down and protests in some others, it wasn't as unstable as internet comments try to make it out to be.
The US troops had to be trained and equipped by the french and english, and it took months to do so. They also brought the Spanish flu with them.
The desperate counterattack at the Somme even if successful wouldn't have solved the issue of the blockade starving both people and industry, the Ottomans being out and Austria-Hungary imploding.
Cody you forgot to mention Tsar Peter III's being a fanboy of Fredrick the Great and Fredrick turned the tide of the war against the Austrian using 90k Russian troops
France: haha Britain we won
Britain: yes but just watch till the end
France: 😭
Germany: 😵
“After 9 long years, the 7 years war was over.”
0:00 Real History
1:05 This is the last video continued
1:27 ANglo Colonists
2:25 French Reformation
3:52 Napoleon
4:17 Prussia gets put down
6:28 Poland's Independent Statehood
7:35 Industrial Revolution 11:30 Urban Guilds
8:51 Hush hush hush
9:56 Aristocratic Nobility Enlightenment
12:29 England and France, Grand Colonial Rivals 15:24
16:56 "Well that changed alot"
17:52 Quakers, Ohio
AlternativeHietory really said at the beginning “After 9 long years the 7 years war ended”
Britain, loses seven year war
Also Britain, gets to live in a world where it is the only major industrial power with nearly a century head start
Then they wouldn't win Euro 2020 😌 *slaps on star*
The Revolutions Podcast covers the French Revolution in a very detailed, but easy to understand, way. One of the biggest problems was Louis XVI's vacillating over reform. He wanted reform, but kept changing his mind when presented with solutions. He was also bad at picking advisors. Then the weather turned bad, causing bad harvests, famine, and dissent. Hence the revolution.
I think there's a flaw in this analysis of France.
Firstly: yes, the peasantry would definitely not give a crap about any of this, their involvement being always about the lack of food on their plates (and later on the problems with the king or a lack there of, but that's Revolution stuff so we don't care in this timeline). But the dominant class of this century and above all the next, the bourgeoisie, ABSOLUTELY have a say in this and they are not fans of nobles or the backwards laws of the Old Regime (we're taling economy here, but political claims were always on the table). When you say the Third Estate doesn't intervene in this scenario, I think you forget that part of that is this very rich lowborn class that is rising and gaining more and more power in the economy spheres. The class that would -mostly- profit from the abolition of privileges (above all else in the economy and production, again) and who, in the end, did all the beheading (yes, the people and mostly the urban populations do matter in the Revolution, but the bourgeois hold the Assemblée Nationale and later institutions of the constitutional monarchy and subsequent First French Republic). I do believe that reform would happen, but definitely not on the side of the nobility, who is for a huge chunk still stuck in the old ways, just as the clergy was. Maybe it wouldn't be as cut and dry as the Brittish monarchy, but considering the state of the nobility by the end of the century and the inevitable march of industrialisation and liberalisation (kind of the same thing according to some economic historians, actually, I'll develop the reason why I think by the end of the 7YW, it's innevitable later) I think that any reform would still hugely benefit the bourgeois class emboldening them politically as well. And an economically strong and very politically demanding class will probably soon stop asking and begin demanding. So in the end, a slower industrial age BUT DEFINITELY STILL THERE. Because industrialisation walks hand in hand with economic liberalisation which would still very much have grown as the old economic system was crushed by the demands of the new Europe (Brought about by colonization and world-wide trading in the XVIIIth century).
I just can't see the weakening aristocrats and guilds of the latter half of the century doing much against the moving world. They'll slow it down, for sure. The war would strengthen the regime, yes but not to the point of keeping old ideas going for so long. Because I think you're wrong about one thing: Brittain isn't the only colonial power of the latter century: France is right behind. And demands for new products and manufacturing, wouldn't cease with a french victory. They'd grow bigger than before, really. Maybe, even with a monarchy at the helm, economic liberalisation would be brought about faster. Because the thing that truly seperates France from its European neighbours in the South and the East is its colonies and above all else its position in the global trade. Now, of course, doctrin is doctrin, but said doctrin was already on the way out by the end of this war and with how powerful the Third State (and by that I mean the Bourgeois, again)
Way more competent people than I have explained why the industrial revolution (which they don't like to call like that because it's *not* fast and sudden) happened in the latter half of the XVIIIth century in both France and Brittain and continued all throughout the next century.
I'm also not going to downplay the role of the French Revolution. The XIXth century without it is unimaginable. however, it's doubtful that the Old Regime (when it comes to economy at least) would have lasted eternally in the Kingdom of France. Socially, it'd be more of a Britain or maybe Prussia situation, sure, but I doubt the economical changes would have been definitely halted. Hell, Napoleon's end didn't stop it, neither did the restorationists after him. They only slowed the process down somewhat.
Also I'd like to say that this comment isn't meant to downplay or say you're wrong, thes scenario you offer is possible (and fascinating too ^^), I just personally think it's unlikely.
The American School System: “The what now?”
Yeah lol I have no idea why we call it the French and Indian war, probably because that’s the only part of the war we experienced, but I heard that Quebec also doesn’t always call it the 7 years war either, so maybe it’s just a new world thing. Also, the name 7 years war doesn’t make sense to me since it was 9 years but there’s probably some historical context behind that.
@@reesespieces2514 I think the French and Indian War is the North American Front of the war like the Pacific War to WWII but idk
@Jenny A.
Are you saying Quebec isn’t in North America?
@@reesespieces2514 People living in the English colonies called it the "French and Indian War" because those were the enemies they were directly fighting on that front--an alliance of French colonists with the indigenous Algonquin Federation.
(The English were also allied with another major indigenous federation, of course, but if you want to argue with these people, build a time machine and go back to before they all died.)
Also the French/Algonquin vs. English/Iroquois war in Ohio actually started first--two years before the fighting started in Europe--which is both why the fighting in Europe is referred to as the "Seven Years War" and also why some people consider them to be two different (albeit closely related) conflicts.
It's kind of like how most people still consider the German invasion of Poland in 1939 to be the beginning of "World War II", even though the "Second Sino-Japanese War" (aka the Chinese front of World War II) had already started in 1937.
@@reesespieces2514 Probably because it is normally taught in American History classes. Therefore, only the implications on America are considered when discussing that particular war. So the European theater is pretty much ignored. In contrast, my HS World History class focused on the European theater of the war since that was more relevant in the worldwide scheme of things.
here is an interesting scenario: what if Kaiser Frederick III didn't die and rulled for at least 10 years
I feel like things might go better for the africans themselves at that point - if the British treated them like the North American indigenous (which wasn't well but wasn't slavery), and tried to get them as allies against the French, maybe things wouldn't have gone so badly
I mean, we genocided the natives in America. Prolly not that much better
@@azuresegugio9095
Yes, but you have to remember how much of that genocide was the fact that the natives had never encountered smallpox (whether infection was accidental or intentional it still had a 90% chance of killing a Native American, far less for the European colonists). The Africans, who not only had smallpox, but lived where smallpox originated, were far less susceptible to the disease.
@@prestonjones1653 Yes but there was also a very real cultural genocide, as well as the fact many people were killed directly or forcibly relocated to reservations. Im not sure that would be the case in Africa as it was literally a belief of many that the land was inhospitable to white men, but hypothetically they could have gone through something similar
No. I disagree, based on historical evidence.
King George III was, at the time the Declaration of Independence was written, who Jefferson criticized as allowing the Atlantic Slave Trade to continue. This was not included in the finalized draft of the Declaration, as both South Carolina and Virginia opposed it -- so rather than piss off colonies that Jefferson knew the Colonies needed to win the war, he left out the paragraph he had written condemning King George and the slave trade.
The original draft of the Declaration was found in a desk drawer in 1947, and is now in the custody of the National Archives.
Knowing this, I do not think slavery would have ended as it did in OTL. Rather, I think the British would still see Africans as sub-human, good for nothing more than slaves and cannon fodder. And this continues because without the US Civil War, the ideas put down at the US Founding and the consequential Civil War don't happen. Humans, as a group, rarely ever change their behavior, if they can help it.
@@azuresegugio9095
That is a good point, however even if such a thing was attempted in Africa, I think the Africans, being less vulnerable to European diseases, would have had the numbers to make such a large-scale genocide inconceivable compared to the relative ease with which the Native Americans and Native Austrialians were exterminated and relocated.
You just gave a really good argument for the "medieval stasis" trope that exists in a lot of fiction. The Industrial Revolution is more aptly named than I realized.
What if the events of Bleeding Kansas started the Civi War?
They did
As a native Kansan, that is an interesting question. It comes down to when it happened. The conflict started from the Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854 and lasted until 1859. Furthermore, this is a pre-Republican time (Everyone will need temporarily forget about modern Republicans. They were a vastly different thing back then.) and the two main parties where Whig and Democrats, with the Democrats being dominated by pro-slavery Southerners.
However, the term 'Bleeding Kansas' was not coined until 1856, so we will kick off the conflict there. Maybe John Brown started his raids a few years earlier. Pierce was the president, a northern Democrat who saw the abolitionist movement as a threat to the union, who signed the above mentioned Act and actively enforced the Fugitive Slave Act in a futile attempt to keep the nation united.
If he saw things threatening to boil over, he would have squashed things, possibly in a heavy-handed manner with federal troops. A civil war here would not be a matter of one group not liking the presidential election results and trying to leave the playground before someone could take away their toys. It would be an abolitionist insurrection.
We would see more things like John Brown's attack on Harpers Ferry. Abolitionists would begin to believe that the government was just a tool for Southern Slavers and reject such rule. They would possibly radicalize and take more extreme actions would be taken to free the Blacks and foster slave rebellions.
The scared Senate, on both sides of the aisle, would pass more laws to restrict things in an attempt to preserve the Union and mobilize more of the army to put down these violent flare-ups. Seeing opportunities, foreign powers could secretly aid groups that furthered their agendas.
There probably would not be a unified attempt to secede and form a new country. The moderate Abolitionists would try to keep doing things diplomatically, the extremists would reject them because they no longer trust the government and the Southern landowners would also reject it because they feel it let the extremists off the hook.
Eventually, states might try to break off piecemeal, California being the most successful due to distance, or Abolitionists trying to seize territory to found new free countries. The Southerners and Unionists doing what they can to put down Secessionists until they grow tired; it is one thing to fight a war on the open battlefield, but putting out disorganized flashfires and growing discontent is another. Some type of accord is probably reached, possibly granted recognition and land to some of the new entity nations.
Whether the former nation will ever reunite will depend on how long it takes for slavery to ultimately fail and how violent it was when it happens. If it takes too long, with new generations of non-U.S. citizens being born who have no memory of that time, or too violent, making the Southern resentment fester, then the American continent would be forever divided.
However, that is just one take. Interested in seeing what other people think would happen.
@@alexguymon7117 But likely it snowballed from there in massive escalation over a short period of time.
4:04 wtf is that😂😂😂 its like a grey Capibara mixed withan anime girl protagonist
Does anyone else think the Seven Years War should be or should have been known as the First World War?
(Edit: I just think it fits the bill quite neatly being literally a global conflict.)
It doen't really involve the whole world but it is the first major intercontinental war. (excluding conflicts in the middle east of course which are often technically intercontinental)
@@arthurbriand2175 I agree to that extent I suppose there wasn’t any clashes along the Yangtze during the Seven Years War, but then again neither did WW1. I feel like both conflicts, WW1 being on a much grander scale regarding equipment, manpower and total loss of life as well as polticsl change, were equal at least in geography.
I do agree tho it wasn’t truly a global conflict.
The reason it's Not called such is because it was still Just Europeans fighting.
@@arthurbriand2175 I would think either the Trojan war or the Punic wars would be the first major intercontinental war.
@@enderkatze6129 Not true, the Indian Mughal empire and the native Indians also fought in the war. By this logic, most of WW1 was also European infighting.
If Cody ever start writing alternate history books I’d read them in a heartbeat.
Fun fact: America might call it the French Indian war but people from South Carolina call it the Cherokee war because we only fought the g Cherokee and pushed to georgia
Video Idea: If the American Civil war was non-violent and how that will effect American values and culture and its relationship with Britain
If they lost I wouldn’t have been able to order my plush 😂
What
Get it from the sewing guild!
“And with Spain ever since the 1700’s”
Me: *Ouch*
It's very easy to see the nobility's unwillingness to innovate and invest in technological progress when looking at 19th century Russia. Landowners by and large were content with their serfs working the fields up until it became glaringly obvious to the TZsar that the country was lagging behind severely. Yet again.
When you pointed out the likelihood of industrial progress in British, (weakned) Prussian and Scandinavian territory it clicked for me that this also maintains conflict lines between the Protestant nations and the Catholic and Eastern Orthodox worlds, and that any major Intra-European conflict we consider in this timeline may be as brutal on sectarian grounds as the 30 Years War or the Iran-Iraq War.
sounds like a blessed timeline of the British failing upwards
All I’m hearing is That is the French one we would not have our Cody
I'm so sorry.
Won*
Y'know, it seems wierd to say so but I'd say the fact that we Lost is a good thing...
Man, this is such a good episode.
Lt. Colonel George Washington was instrumental in starting the Seven Years War. Then after the British spent a lot of money defending the colonies from France the colonies got pissed that they needed to pay back some of that money. Then the Brits lost the American Revolution because the French supported the Colonies. American Revolution was totally Seven Years War Part II - and the British totally lost the Seven Years War.
This Timeline: "The Industrial Revolution and its consequences have been stifled and averted, thank Jesus Christ."
The Industrial Revolution was under way by the end of the Seven Year’s War
@@wisemankugelmemicus1701
No it wasn't lol. Seven Years War was back in the 1760s, Industrial Revolution was 1800s
Politics absolutely influences your lineage! Me: huh, I wonder why all my Mexican ancestors suddenly jumped from Zacatecas to Spain... oh. Oh right, the Inquisition.
La inquisición era mucho peor en españa que en México
@@santiagogarza8121 sometimes! A lot of people fled Spain (y las Canarias) and went to Mexico to escape the inquisition. You are a Garza -- maybe you are descended from Alonso o Costanza de la Garza! Look for Spain's PARES records if you do your family tree.
Suggestions: "What if: Teutonic Order won the First Battle of Tannenberg (Battle of Grunwald) Or "What If" Prussia hadn't let its Army degenerate after Frederick the Great and won the Battles of Jena-Auerstedt.
Also: no French Revolution-> no Napoleon-> no Peninsular war (alongside with no revolutionary ideals) -> no independentist movements in Spanish America
Good.
Very important notion about the guild. In Germany the Prussian reforms of 1812 -which were mainly driven by the defeat at Napoleon's hands- allowed for the first time in its history that a man could choose his own profession. In some parts of Germany like Hamburg these limitations were held up until the mid of the 19th century even though they were exposed to revolutionary ideas. Article 12 of the German constitution (from 1949 mind you) still states that every citizen has the right to chose their pursuit their own career path and profession. I am pretty sure most countries do not have it that specifically in their bill of rights.
Interesting
Please do: What if Mexico accepted the Zimmerman Telegram
What's that?
@@camillaquelladegliaggettiv4303 a telegram to convince mexico to enter the central powers in ww1
Mexico would get absolutely roflstomped
Mexico would lose, but it would take some time. US did fight against Pancho Villa (He is from Mexico) in 1916, but his forces got away (they stopped in Jan of 1917, the same month and year as when the Zimmerman Telegram was went). US population in 1917 was about 100 million, while Mexico was 15 million. Training took 6 weeks. US would be involved in Jan of 1917 instead of April of 1917. Assuming the US only need to capture of the capital of Mexico, the war might be over by September of 1917 (gut feeling). As long as US doesn't take any territory and only wants to have Mexico to sign a document stating they won't invade the US again and aid Germany in anyway, then I don't see the way lasting too long. The US might send troops to Europe at the same time, but it would take time for the troops to be large enough on the Eastern front. Once Mexico surrenders, the US would then send all forces to Europe. The war might still end in November of 1918 because of the Kiel mutiny, which triggered a revolt in Germany. So...not much difference.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Expeditionary_Forces
0:50 a great dictator, the greatest dictator
Can we acknowledge how many global conflicts have been started over Ohio.
Wait, it's all Ohio?
@@nathaniellindner313
*Cocks gun* Always has been.
Abolish ohio, establish world peace
Yes! I’m so happy that you made this video.
Finally a good alternative history video
The immigration to the French colonies (especially women) was skyrocketing before the war.
By the way, how do you think France would ever Get Poland to be a puppet when it was already a Russian one?
And if there were both guild and rural nobles why wouldn't the industrial revolution happen outside the guild?
Poland : Due to marriage systems and the polish origin of Louis XV.
@@pierren___ Russia wouldn't allow it and France would have other priorities.
A lot of the women went over to Nouvelle France courtesy of the Filles du Roi program. The King paid your way over, gave you a chunk of cash if you met a man you were willing to marry, and paid your way home with a smaller but definite stipend if you struck out and got sick of the place.
"What if The Dutch had kept New Netherlands" The Dutch continue to develop their colonies in a similar way the English did.
We now need a plushie of the cat Cody drew.
Another perfect world.
I am honestly very fascinated by timelines where the French revolution never happened.
Reading Malcolm Gladwell's "The Bomber Mafia", near the very end there is an interesting section, where a Japanese man said they (the Japanese) should thank LeMay for the firebombing of Japan and the atomic bombs for forcing them to surrender.
That the idea (in his mind) that without the surrender, the Russians invade Japan, and America invade as well, and end up turning Japan into a North/South similar to Korea and similar to West/East Germany.
An alt-history idea of what would have happened if Haywood Hansell wasn't replaced by Curtis LeMay, and he keeps attempting to use the B-29s to attack Industrial and Military complexes rather than LeMay's indiscriminate firebombing with napalm. Even segue into if America doesn't drop the A-Bombs on Japan. What happens with an invasion of Japan with Russia and America and how it all plays out.
Thanks for the consideration.
More great content. Bring back what if Rome survived series.
What if Huey Long became the President?
yes
Yeah
Please
That’s enough Kaiserreich for one day
@@cakebear9534 ha i dont play hoi4