Alternate history scenarios: What if?

[Stalker]

I am a great fan of Alternate history! Nothing (in Sci-Fi) can give me more pleasure than watching the plot that grows out of the real history we took for granted when read school history textbooks. Putting historical persons in quite a different situation, exploring their behavior - that's something else! Find the key point in human history and suggest your own scenario!

The most popular scenario is probably what would have happened if German Reich had won WW2. One of the most remarkable books on the topic is (in my opinion) The Man in the High Castle by Philip K. Dick.
More distant point of alternation: what would have been if that damn meteorite hadn't hit Earth 65 million years ago? Harry Harrison's West of Eden is extremely good!
What would have happened if Aztecs (assumption: they knew Iron) had opened Europe (not otherwise)?
What if Both Scipions were killed at the battle of Zama? Delenda Est by Paul Anderson
What if Gruchi had stopped Blucher and prevented him from arriving on the field of Waterloo to join battered British troops under Duke Wellington's command?
But the matter which interests me the most at the moment is what would have happened if Napoleon hadn't surrendered to the capitain of HMS Bellerophont and used the offer of the merchant from Boston and fled to the USA? Would Great Britain have started another war against the States because of it. Would Munro or Andrew Jacksson be glad to use Napoleon's skills in such a war? Etc.
Your ideas? Your scenarios?

[Animaiden]

I'm good at posing the questions, not answering them so,

How about:
What if George Washington had died crossing the Deleware?

What if Portugal had accepted Columbus' proposal instead of rejecting it?

What if Martin Luther hadn't nailed his theses to the door of the church, but somewhere else?

What if Pope Urban II hadn't made his crusades speech?

[zorcarepublic]

I would love to answer these questions, Animaiden, but I can't. I'd have to know the period of history in question before making a reply. I can, however, make a brief, possibly incorrect statement about the last:

We would possibly be more tolerant towards the Middle East?

[Stalker]

[quote=Animaiden]I'm good at posing the questions, not answering them so,
By bad! Although, seems giving reference to certain books, I gave partial answers because I would probably not be able to suggest better scenarios.
How about:

Originally Posted by Animaiden

What if George Washington had died crossing the Deleware?

Unfortunately, my knowledge of War of Independence is very limited. Seem to me, however, that England would have lost that war in any case but consequences migh have been different. The war would have lasted longer but American victory in such a case might have become even greater if disconteted Canadians forced to feed and lodge British troops keeping on coming there had risen too. USA+Canada - migh sound pleasant for an American ear, heh?

Originally Posted by Animaiden

What if Portugal had accepted Columbus' proposal instead of rejecting it?

All right, then all Latin America spoke Portugese instead of Spanish!

Originally Posted by Animaiden

What if Martin Luther hadn't nailed his theses to the door of the church, but somewhere else?

Completely unaware of that case. If you will be so kind as tell the whole story (in short) we may speculate on that topic. Did it really matter for history where Luther had nailed his theses?

Originally Posted by Animaiden

What if Pope Urban II hadn't made his crusades speech?

Crusades would have happened, sooner or later, in any case because Urban II only highlighted ideas that came to minds of many Christian rulers of that time. They thought that Saracens had defected Christianity, and Holy Sepulcre needed their protection. It was quite an obsessing idea I should say!

[Animaiden]

Martin Luther was a friar(or monk, can't remember which). He didn't like the way the christian church was going, so he wrote up his complaints as 95 theses and nailed them to the neighborhood church door. The church didn't like it, and after muchdebate and arguing, plus many years, Martin Luther was excommunicated. He was the start of the Protestant Reformation. Lutherans are nemed after his ideas on what was wrong with the church(witch was only catholic in tose days).

I believe that if George Washington had died crossing te Deleware, the American would have lost heart, a good comander, and more than likely the war. There probably would have been another bid for independence, but it would come much later.

Most of the questions I posed are from what I just learned in my Western Civilization 1 class in college. It deals with history up to Christopher Colombus getting to the New World.

This might be a little juvenile,but the is an young adult book that deals with the subject of "if this did or didn't happen". Animorphs: Megamorphs #3 by K.A. Applegate. Shows what a world would be like if certain things did or didn't happen. You might want to read up on the series before you read this book, though.

[Stalker]

Originally Posted by Animaiden

Martin Luther was a friar(or monk, can't remember which). He didn't like the way the christian church was going, so he wrote up his complaints as 95 theses and nailed them to the neighborhood church door. The church didn't like it, and after muchdebate and arguing, plus many years, Martin Luther was excommunicated. He was the start of the Protestant Reformation. Lutherans are nemed after his ideas on what was wrong with the church(witch was only catholic in tose days).

Thanks. I, of course, know who was Martin Luther, I simply didn't know that particular story with nailing theses. As far as I remember, he was a Catholic cleric. So, your point is understood. I believe that history is a consistent thing. That means that it follows certain irresistable rules. One of the rules is that the oppression ALWAYS results in the REVOLUTION AGAINST IT. The tougher opression, the more horrible revolution will happen. Reformation was one of such revolutions. A religious revolution. I also believe that there are key persons whose alternate behaviour in key points of history could have changed all our civilisation. It seems to me Martin Luther - however strange that may sound - was not such a person. Of course, his alternate behavior ould have changed certain details in our history but not much. The aristocracy all over Europe strived for Reformation, they hated the Church as institution that appeared to be the biggest land owner. There were also lots of other reasons. My thesis is that the THIS WAY OR THAT REFORMATION SHOULD HAVE HAPPENED IN ANY CASE. However, the details are interesting. Jean Calvin, for example, could have expanded his influence not only in Switzerland and Eastern France but also along the Rhein and all over Northern Germany and Scandinavia.

Originally Posted by Animaiden

I believe that if George Washington had died crossing te Deleware, the American would have lost heart, a good comander, and more than likely the war. There probably would have been another bid for independence, but it would come much later.

The rebel colonies had all chances to be victorious in the end because even with death of Washington they had all advantages except trained regular Army and Navy. Britain had all disadvantages except for Army and Navy. Add to this, long line of communication between the Islands and the American continent. Britain could not have afforder that war for too long despite all stubborness of George III.

[FelineEyes]

I agree that a reformation of some kind would have happened regardless of what Luther did or didn't do. However, the simplest answer to your question Animaiden is that there would be no Lutherans.
And you and I would be Catholics.
And it seems to me that Calvinism was inspired by Lutheranism and if the Lutherans hadn't started the Reformation, maybe John Calvin would have done anything if Luther hadn't started it. And maybe not. Moreover, if Luther and Calvin hadn't done anything at all, it would have taken a lot longer for the Catholic Church to reform, but they wouldn't have had any reason to.
On the other hand, it would have prevented the 30 Years War, the massarce of the Hugenots in France, and save thousands of other lives.

And to think: if the Catholic Church reformed on it's own and prevented the reformation, they maybe the KKK wouldn't have any trouble with them.
And then again, maybe they would.
Any thoughts on this?

[Stalker]

Originally Posted by FelineEyes

I agree that a reformation of some kind would have happened regardless of what Luther did or didn't do. However, the simplest answer to your question Animaiden is that there would be no Lutherans.
And you and I would be Catholics.

Or Lutherans would now be called Zwinglians and would have some difference in doctrine if compared to Lutherans. Zwingli started his propagation of Church reform even before Luther and had a large support in Southern Germany. Or else, if Zwingli had failed, then Calvin for sure would have tried to fill in the vacant place by his preaching.

Originally Posted by FelineEyes

And it seems to me that Calvinism was inspired by Lutheranism and if the Lutherans hadn't started the Reformation, maybe John Calvin would have done anything if Luther hadn't started it. And maybe not. Moreover, if Luther and Calvin hadn't done anything at all, it would have taken a lot longer for the Catholic Church to reform, but they wouldn't have had any reason to.
On the other hand, it would have prevented the 30 Years War, the massarce of the Hugenots in France, and save thousands of other lives.

Don't forget that before St. Bartholomew's night in Paris in August 1571, hugenots slaughtered thousands of catholics in pogroms in Southern France. So, they weren't mere sheep either.

Originally Posted by FelineEyes

And to think: if the Catholic Church reformed on it's own and prevented the reformation, they maybe the KKK wouldn't have any trouble with them.
And then again, maybe they would.
Any thoughts on this?

Interesting point of view, and it needs further consoderation. To reform on its own, Catholic Church needed a huge kick in the ass. Actually that's what had happened. Since then Catholic Church has changed, very-very slowly but anyway, it has changed. Can that be called a reform? Yes, in a way.

[Leto]

Originally Posted by FelineEyes

the massarce of the Hugenots in France.

Doubtful, these events just took religion as a pretext, the real reason behind was a clash of powers between two kingdom : France and Navarre, and the consolidation of French nation (which already used Albigeois massacre to do so in Middle Age).

What if Crusades never happened ?

[Stalker]

Originally Posted by Leto

Doubtful, these events just took religion as a pretext, the real reason behind was a clash of powers between two kingdom : France and Navarre, and the consolidation of French nation (which already used Albigeois massacre to do so in Middle Age).

What if Crusades never happened ?

If we take for granted that Crusades never happened (but they should have happened as the response of Islamic conquest of Middle East and North Africa - see my opinion above). Then the modern world as we know it would be a strange place.
here is a few consequential lines:
1) The gunpowder would have been reinvented in Europe century or later because Europeans ould have never had a chance to learn that such a thing exists from the Arabs - the military techniques and strategies would go on developing without that factor - for long yet Europe could not have achieved any military advantage over East.
2) Byzantine Empire would have been occupied by Saladin long before the Turks. - Arabs would have invaded Balkans instead of Turks - what would you say about Caliphate of Albania, or Greek Caliphate. Their rule would be far more rutheless that one of the Turks. Maybe, even now Ukraine's neighbours would be one of such Caliphates. Even in 21th century, armies would still be armed with muzzle-loaders using black powder. No electricity, no heavy industries, only small manufactures, NO COMPUTERS. We would not be able to communicate with one another via Internet.
3) Due to the threat of Islam all Europe would have consolidated under the Catholic Church. No opposition allowed, no free thought, no civil liberties. Reformation never happened, or should any, it would be suppressed quickly and efficiently. The fires of Holy Inquisition would have survived until 20th century.
4) America. The necessity to import spices when the way to India is locked by the Muslims would lead to in the end to opening America in almost the same terms. Here my vision fails me. Who can help?

[Winters_Sorrow]

hmm - slightly harsh on that analysis I thought.
Saladin only came to power because of the crusades. I don't think its stretching to say that he would be another nameless clan chief if the crusades hadn't happened.

Also, due to trade, I don't think Gunpowder could have remained a secret for much longer. It was never fully incorporated into European combat until the 15th century anyway - after Marco Polo's return from China, so there may have been a slight delay. But not enough to cause that much disruption.
I agree about the Byzantine Empire though - that was created as a result of the crusades outcomes.

Personally, I'd like to think that there would not be as much recrimination & conflict between Islam & the western world without the crusades. There had been clashes before (notably in Spain) but that was a clash of countries and kings and between 2 isolated kingdoms.
The mass invasion of the Middle East by 4 or 5 countries (the first "coalition of the willing?" ) sparked a bloody occupation which sours relationships to this day and also (arguably) created the militant interpretation of the Koran. It could be argued that had the reverse happened and we had indeed been invaded & occupied for a century or two, a few of the *smite the unbeliever* phrases within the bible could have created a zeal amongst Catholics matched by todays suicide 'matyrs'

I think the crusades however weakened the church's power in the long run. The deaths (and more importantly, expense!) as a result of them - especially considering 'we' lost and in losing created an Islamic 'super-state' caused a lot of the kingdoms not to be as subordinate to the church and (and arguably!) ultimately caused the splitting off of the Church by Henry VIII - as I couldn't see that happening under the power the church held a few hundred years earlier.

all-in-all the great fun with alternate history is that you can saw what you like as long as it's plausible!

[Stalker]

In my opinion, a very interesting alternation:
Romans learned stirrup at Marcus Aurelius' time before Markoman war. Early introduction of heavy cavalry instead of cataphracts into cavalry tactics would make the transitional period to Middle Ages more smooth because getting rid of restless independent Germanic tribes in continental Europe could have presented Rome some more quiet centuries to cope with the crisis of economy. But having smashed Germans to dust, and extending its borders from Rein to Vistula, Rome would have come to face another barbaric unions - Slavs and Baltics
I guess, Dark Ages were unavoidable in any case but is there a chance that in the case mentioned above, human knowledge and culture accumulated by Rome would have lost less then in our history?

[Winters_Sorrow]

In my view the Dark Ages happened because of the resentment, jealousy & anger Rome generated to its 'colonies' through 5 centuries of rule. Once the barbarians at the gates destroyed the Roman Empire in the west, anything Roman was reviled and obliterated - even the Latin language was largely abandoned due to its 'roman' connections so the systems of learning were lost too.

Don't forget, the Roman Empire in the East thrived long after Rome fell - it might be a more interesting "what if" to consider what effect on the world had the Eastern Roman Empire regained and re-took the west rather than abandoning them and consolidating in the east.
(I'm sure Brian will offer more input into this time period than I ever could....)

[Stalker]

Originally Posted by Winters_Sorrow

In my view the Dark Ages happened because of the resentment, jealousy & anger Rome generated to its 'colonies' through 5 centuries of rule. Once the barbarians at the gates destroyed the Roman Empire in the west, anything Roman was reviled and obliterated - even the Latin language was largely abandoned due to its 'roman' connections so the systems of learning were lost too.

Don't forget, the Roman Empire in the East thrived long after Rome fell - it might be a more interesting "what if" to consider what effect on the world had the Eastern Roman Empire regained and re-took the west rather than abandoning them and consolidating in the east.
(I'm sure Brian will offer more input into this time period than I ever could....)

Well, all you are saying is true. Still, the point is that Rome however it was hated boasted high life standards and Roman citizenship offered lots of benefits. All barbaric people knew that, some of them even moved themselves under the protection of Rome. In a long run it became quite clear to Roman emperors that citizenship will do much work for Rome, and the son of Septimius Severus, Caracalla granted Roman citizenship to all free people of Roman Empire in 212 AD.
There were also several attempts from Eastern Roman Empire (known as Byzantium in Middle Ages) to regain control over Latin part of the Empire (I should also note here that it was a cultural paradox that those whom we know now as Byzantines called themselves Romans actually being in huge majority Greeks and those western parts of the Empire where Rome was situated they called Latin lands. The paradox is that even Italians called Byzantines "Romei" - Romans) to regain control over Rome. Most successful attempt since' Constantine's was Belisarius' war in Italy during the reign of the basileus Justinian (6th century AD). Had he had stirrup then, Empire would be united once again.
The weak point in my story is that how could Romans in 2nd or even 6th century acquire stirrup from distant Asian tribes until Hungarians came to Europe armed with it in 8th century?

[Winters_Sorrow]

Romans weren't renowned horsemen in either case - they mostly used cavarly auxilla and more often than not, used allied horse rather than romans as such.

And my point was, that when Rome was top dog many people wanted Roman citizenship & associated benefits (it was the only way to get power & wealth for many) but once the rot set in - not many stuck around to be part of the losing side. Hence the abandonment of all elements of "Roman-ness" (sp? ) and the loss of learning and education that went along with it.

The bigger issue I think was that, because there was no-one to replace the Roman Empire when it fell (the barbarians often fought each other as much as they did Rome) the state of pretty much constant low-level warfare did not allow the luxury of time or learning to be pursued. Indeed, even in "Roman Britain" which was fairly isolated and in theory should have survived, there was a loss of control and things disintergrated into feuding warlords again.

A bigger what if could have been - what if Roman Britain had remained united and organised after the fall of Rome. It could have withstood the viking invasions and possibly the Britons would have remained Celtic rather than Anglo-Saxon as later...