What if?

[plan_D]

Now, this seems like a redundant subject, I know. But this is different because this is not about World War II. I am opening this to the last 4000 years of history.

Maybe there's some of you out there with at least some minor interest in Classic History. There's a lot of times in history that have been dubbed the turning points of our civilisation, but what of those that weren't? What events do you think changed the course of a war, or the course of mankinds civilisation?

What if the Lost Order from Robert E. Lee had never been lost? Would one more victory ensure French and British recognition of a Confederate independance?

What if the Varus Legions were never destroyed in Teutoburg Forest in 9 A.D? Would the Roman Empire expand to the Vistula and hold off the barbarians in later years? Would the Protestant reformation ever happen?

What if Napoleon did not impose such harsh conditions on his conquests in 1807? Would Israel be a reality much earlier?

What if Alexander the Great died before becoming The Great? Or what if he had lived past the age of 38? Would the Indian subcontinent become Macedonian?

What if the English Fireships were turned away from the Spanish Armada? Would the United States speak Spanish?

Any "what ifs?" anyone else has? Or question those I posted? Try and keep World War II out of it, because they are quite...well, there's loads of threads dedicated to 'em.

 

[Nonskimmer]

Hmmm. What if the British occupying forces of Québec had expelled the French entirely, as well as the remaining Acadians from New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, and Prince Edward Island, thus ensuring a completely anglophone Canada?

 

[plan_D]

An higher English presence in Canada would have changed the history of Canada, obviously. But I'm not sure if it would affect anyone else, the most obvious choice would be the United States. It's my understanding, however, that the French Canadian leant arms to oppose the U.S in the 1812 conflict just as much as the English. And, also, any European intervention (obviously from Canada) in the U.S civil war was a French and British affair anyway. The French, after all, did request British support for an intervention - and there are records of the French being willing to accept Confederate independance with British support - the British never did lend support, after the Union won Gettysburg.

 

[Smokey]

What if Batu and Subutai, the Mongol warlords had not stopped after the Mohi River, and had invaded the rest of Europe?

To many historians, the death of the Great Khan prevented the utter destruction of the remainder of Europe. Had Ogedei not died that year, Batu and Subutai planned to invade Austria first, destroy Vienna, then proceed to conquer the German principalities, then invade Italy. The following year, if all went all, would have probably seen France and Spain meet the same fate, given the complete failure of the European Knights Templar and Teutonic Knights at Legnitz. In the chaos that followed the retreat of Batu, an Englishman in Mongolian service was captured and tortured. He confessed to be Batu's main foreign language specialist and two time envoy to King Belá of Hungary, ranking him as the most important diplomat in the Mongolian European campaign.

Batu Khan - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Mongolian bow had a greater range than the longbow, and gave the Mongol armies a huge advantage ´when combined witth their cavalry skills and huge numbers

Asian bows, such as the Mongol bow and especially the Turkish bow had ranges much longer than any other hand weapon until the arrival of modern breach-loading firearms in the early 20th Century. Estimates for the Mongol bow give it a draw force greater than the English longbow (75 pounds and range of 250 yards) of about 100 to 160 pounds and a range of 320 to 350 yards or more.[6]. A more contemporary review by Hildinger (1997, pg 27-31)[citation needed] suggests that it was only accurate at up to 80 yards when fired from horseback, but "shooting in arcade" (at 45 degrees) allowed for much greater ranges.

Some say that the Mongols were religiously tolerant. If this was so, and the Mongols had conquered the whole of Europe, the religious tolerance may have been introduced to Europe. No fighting between Protestants and Catholics.

Language barriers may have been removed, with massive consequences.

 

[Gnomey]

I am going to think about this for a bit, I will post back with something in due time.

 

[plan_D]

No disrespect, but Sabotai would not have been tolerant. The Mongol horde was not tolerant of city living which would lead to the complete destruction of European civilisation. Paris, the intellectual heart of 13th Century Europe, would have been flattened. If any European city resisted it would have been been burnt with its inhabitants beheaded, just like what happened in Nishapur.

As for religious tolerance, the caliphate (Ismalic equal to Catholic pope) was put in a bag and trampled to death. The only religious tolerance shown there was that the Mongolians found it sacred to die without spilling blood. Islam has never reinstated another caliphate after that.
If the Mongolians treat the Pope the same as they did the caliphate, then there would be no Protestant reformation. So, there definately wouldn't have been any distaste for Catholics amongst them. Christianity would fall into millions of pieces.

If Ogadi had not died, the Europe would have been obliterated. And any link to the Greek and Roman studies would have been destroyed with it.

 

[Nonskimmer]

An higher English presence in Canada would have changed the history of Canada, obviously. But I'm not sure if it would affect anyone else, the most obvious choice would be the United States.

I wonder. I suppose you're right. Canada would certainly be quite different, in that we'd undoubtedly have taken a lot longer to push for autonomy from the Crown (ceremonial reasons not withstanding). We'd probably still be flying the Red Ensign, singing The Maple Leaf Forever as our national anthem, and still be wearing British patterned uniforms the way the Australians still do.

The French element of Canadian society, while unfortunately mired by the separatist stigma these days, has contributed much to Canadian progression and identity. It was a Québécois who penned the original version of O Canada, in French (still used in it's original form today), it was they who were the largest driving force for a unique national flag, invented the snowmobile, and they are still - STILL - the best damn hockey players on the face of our earth!

But as for Canada's effect on global events being much different? Hmmm. I really do wonder. We sure as hell wouldn't have had the infighting to preoccupy us, and I believe that the liberal element wouldn't have taken quite as strong a hold as it has. Multi-culturalism wouldn't have taken over to nearly the extent that it has, and I believe we'd have maintained a much more unified national focus of some sort. I'm certainly not trying to imply that we'd be a superpower of anykind, surely nothing of the sort, but I'm certain that without the continuous internal bickering, our history would have taken us in a less circuitous path up 'till now.

Then again, maybe we'd be the 51st state today. I don't freakin' know.


This is gonna be a good thread, I think. Lots of great things to ponder.

 

[Smokey]

No disrespect, but Sabotai would not have been tolerant. The Mongol horde was not tolerant of city living which would lead to the complete destruction of European civilisation. Paris, the intellectual heart of 13th Century Europe, would have been flattened. If any European city resisted it would have been been burnt with its inhabitants beheaded, just like what happened in Nishapur.

As for religious tolerance, the caliphate (Ismalic equal to Catholic pope) was put in a bag and trampled to death. The only religious tolerance shown there was that the Mongolians found it sacred to die without spilling blood. Islam has never reinstated another caliphate after that.
If the Mongolians treat the Pope the same as they did the caliphate, then there would be no Protestant reformation. So, there definately wouldn't have been any distaste for Catholics amongst them. Christianity would fall into millions of pieces.

If Ogadi had not died, the Europe would have been obliterated. And any link to the Greek and Roman studies would have been destroyed with it.

If that was the case, then the only major civilisations left in the world with a chance of developing would be in the Americas and Australia. Africa would probably have been absorbed as well. It could have been a case of an American Empire coming into contact with Mongol-dominated Eurasia and Africa.

 

[plan_D]

NS:

The greatest creators of super-power has been the natural resource the nation could obtain, through force or through its own land. Canada has a lot of resources, maybe Canada without internal fighting could have become a super-power. Or maybe Canada could have been in conflict with the U.S as Canada tried to expand with British backing, you never know.

Smokey;

I'm not saying it 100% sure that the Mongolians would have destroyed all of Europe. Maybe Fredrick the Great would have abandoned his fight against Italy and reunited the Holy Roman Empire to fight the Mongol Horde. With the greatest threat against Europe in history, Fredrick might have even joined forces with Louis IX to combat the Mongols.

The Mongolian Empire was built on destruction. Temujin, Genghis Khan, wanted to flatten all northern China and kill the populace. He was only swayed otherwise because an advisor told him alive Chinese pay more taxes than dead ones. And why did he want to do this? To have grazing grounds for the horses.
As I understand the Mongol conquests, they would have completely wiped Europe off the map. The only people still living would be slaves and heavily taxed Europeans. But who knows?

The Mongols would have had to stop at the Channel like so many other empires. But the English navy was not a force to be reckoned with until the 14th - 15th Century. Could the Mongols have crossed the Channel?

If Europe had been destroyed, then the Americas and Australasia are left to the natives. The cultures we know as destroyed, Incas, Aztecs, Native Americans would not meet White Europeans. But more than likely encounter Mongols who would discover the New World.

 

[mkloby]

What if Mexico suppressed the rebellion in Texas, the Mexican-American war didn't happen, and Mexico kept control of her territory from Texas to California... That would have dramatically changed US power obviously, and the US ability to play a part in the ensuing conflicts since then.

Could have led to a wealthy and influential Mexican nation...

 

[plan_D]

I don't know much about the Mexican history. Was there much chance of Mexico suppressing the rebellion? Any particular event that would have changed the course of events?

If the U.S was not to become what we know. Would it have the strength to aid in the fight against Germany in the Great War? Or World War II? Would Mexico be the one helping? Or would both forces take up arms against one another later on as they wished to expand?

If neither aided the Allies, would Germany win any of the World Wars? If the Allies did emerge victorious in World War I (with the advent of the tank, Germany had little chance of victory) - the map of Europe would be vastly different without the influence of Wilson. World War II may never have happened.

 

[mkloby]

I don't know much about the Mexican history. Was there much chance of Mexico suppressing the rebellion? Any particular event that would have changed the course of events?

If the U.S was not to become what we know. Would it have the strength to aid in the fight against Germany in the Great War? Or World War II? Would Mexico be the one helping? Or would both forces take up arms against one another later on as they wished to expand?

If neither aided the Allies, would Germany win any of the World Wars? If the Allies did emerge victorious in World War I (with the advent of the tank, Germany had little chance of victory) - the map of Europe would be vastly different without the influence of Wilson. World War II may never have happened.

Mexico did her business and took out all the rebels at the Alamo - which I got to take another trip to in San Antone a few weeks ago - but shortly thereafter suffered a tremendous defeat at San Jacinto. Sam Houston led the Texans and defeated the Mexicans - taking Santa Anna captive. Texas secured her independence soon after.

If Texas was kept a province of Mexico - the US may never have had her casus belli to drop the hammer on mexico and take all her land. Particularly in terms of natural resources - Texas would have been a boon by herself to Mexico, plus throw in some gold to help Mexican settlement of California, not American settlement of CA.

 

[Matt308]

What if God had taken 8 days. What a f#cking mess the gregorian calendar would be right now.

 

[102first_hussars]

What if Jimmy Hendrix never invented the guitar solo, Rock as we know it would be just like System Of A Down, i shutter to imagine

 

[plan_D]

Wow, those last two were pointless.

NS: I was thinking more about the Canada question. Would it be possible that Canada become LESS of nation without the population that it did have with French and British?

mkloby:

That's interesting. I'll have to read up on Mexico's defeat. But what do you think would have been the result? Maybe the U.S would have assaulted Mexico anyway in it's bid for expansion?

 

[mkloby]

mkloby:

That's interesting. I'll have to read up on Mexico's defeat. But what do you think would have been the result? Maybe the U.S would have assaulted Mexico anyway in it's bid for expansion?

I was thinking that - there may have been war anyway due to America's westward expansion. But, if Mexico did hold those territories, the share of power between the US and Mexico would be quite different. Texas (southeast) is a strange place. I just got stationed here about 6 weeks ago. It has a very high population of Mexicans. I have noticed, though, that the everyday Mexican I run into down here is much more polite and courteous than the regular Joe American. That upsets me.

 

[lesofprimus]

This thread is making my head spin, especially with the discussion on the Mongol Hordes...

 

[Nonskimmer]

NS: I was thinking more about the Canada question. Would it be possible that Canada become LESS of nation without the population that it did have with French and British?

I'm not exactly sure how you mean. I don't think we'd have failed to achieve nation status, through the long road of Responsible Government, Confederation (the BNA Act), the Statute of Westminster, etc. Our ties to the British Crown today would be even stronger than they already are I'm sure, and the Canada Act of 1982 may yet to have occurred, but Canada would still have become, for all intents and purposes, an independant country. It is very possible that we'd continue to view ourselves as being more dependant on the UK to this day, but I think that doubtful. It certainly hasn't been the case with Australia, but then they have their own unique history and circumstances as well. They way I view this is that we'd either have managed to form a stronger, more uniculturaled identity with a more focused national agenda, or we'd have gone in the opposite direction, remaining a more divided collection of provinces, and have been gradually (or maybe not so gradually) absorbed into the United States. On the other hand, that may well have happened even if we were united in our cause. The US casts a powerful shadow over Canada. It's unavoidable. They're an extremely powerful and influential neighbour, and have forged ahead aggressively since their creation. In that light, maybe it's very likely that Canada would have been more susceptible to the American influence very early on, without the loud French voice in Québec to make us stop and think about our identity.

If it's culture you're speaking of, then we'd definitely have less to look back upon. Assuming we were in fact still the country of Canada, we'd be more Americanized than we already are, and there's really not much difference as it is already. I for one don't see that as necessarily being a bad thing, there's nothing at all wrong with the American culture, it's just a point to consider. Many people in today's Canada view that with fear, but I don't see why. As long as you can call yourself Canadian, then what the hell are you afraid of? Culture and politics should never be viewed as being one and the same, and I think that's where people get confused. Ok, so we're a lot like them. Here's the thing people: We're not them. Just relax and enjoy being Canuck.

Nah, I don't think Canada would necessarily have become any less of a nation without the French. We just wouldn't have developed half the charm.

 

[mkloby]

This thread is making my head spin, especially with the discussion on the Mongol Hordes...

 

[plan_D]

What I meant with Canada was, the French populace provided people to breed. With them expelled would Canada have the population to become what it is? I don't doubt that Canada would have achieved it's indepedance eventually, but would Canada have the manpower to lend support in 1812, 1914 or 1939?