What if history scenarios

Remove this Banner Ad

JoondalupJ said:
Same scenario if Genghis Khans invasions went much further into the west of Europe, or Attilla hadn't died , before total conquest , or the Spartans and Greeks fail against the Persians, No western democracies and maybe no modern advanced technological development either, although , the blindness into religion and the thought police of the Islamic era might have been wiped out before they ever got going.
The enlightenment and the development western democracies, with freedom to think outside any dogma.
That may not have occurred .
I am not sure, but if you think of the advances of ancient Egypt then compare it to Mohammad's strict unforgiving rules for life , you have to wonder how far the Egyptians could have gone in modernising themselves way back then, because since Islam , the West has simply advanced and advanced and the Muslim world is nearly all a third world place !
Religious restriction caused that I think. But if your Aunty had testicles?
Click to expand...
Not so much Genghis as Ogadai if you are talking about the Mongol invasion of Europe. The Mongols were just outside Vienna when Ogadai died and they were called back to choose the next khan. That was Kublai and he switched his focus to Asia.
 
sydney eagle said:
Not so much Genghis as Ogadai if you are talking about the Mongol invasion of Europe. The Mongols were just outside Vienna when Ogadai died and they were called back to choose the next khan. That was Kublai and he switched his focus to Asia.
Click to expand...

Actually the Mongols were already on the way back before they heard of the death of the Khan, a popular but inaccurate historical trope. The Mongol invasion of Europe was over hyped the numbers in the battles very accurate. The Second invasion Europe were the Mongols got there arses kicked is rarely mentioned.
 
pugsville said:
Actually the Mongols were already on the way back before they heard of the death of the Khan, a popular but inaccurate historical trope. The Mongol invasion of Europe was over hyped the numbers in the battles very accurate. The Second invasion Europe were the Mongols got there arses kicked is rarely mentioned.
Click to expand...

I was actually referring to Attilla , the Hun. Who had done some battle winning and deal making with the late and somewhat done over, Roman Empire, I believe he died quite soon after either making more pacts with the Romans or was preparing to destroy them some more, his warriors, sort of melted away after his death.
Was he not some kind of ally for the Romans and a buffer from danger from the east.
But Imagine if the Huns had have gone much much further into the west, then.

Ghengis and family would have been there quite a few centuries after that I think?
So to have a "what if" scenario , Ghengis's hordes may have run into a settled but very warlike tribes of Huns in great numbers, who may have already destroyed some of the middle eastern parts that the Romans had occupied on and off.
The whole world would have been a different place.
Or perhaps Ghengis would have already been a member of a gigantic Hun empire, I wonder if even Islam would have got a start if that had happened. The Huns were warlike tribes off the steppes, bow and arrow horse riding nomadic hunter killers, just like Ghengis's Mongols became. Maybe even the same people, I wonder what happens if Ghengis never goes to China, and the Chinese develop , what?
I wonder if the Mameluke's and Baybar their warrior king, I think that's his name, if they had never been there to finish off the remains of the Crusaders , well there may have been no Crusades , no Muslims,just the HUN.

But here's a juicy scenario, say that Attila's people and warriors did destroy Rome and their empire, and moved to the west into Gaul and so on, then a little north, well 3 or 4 centuries of settling may have seen them run into another amazing bunch of hunter killers , the Vikings , and all of northern Germania, outside the Roman Empire. Saxons Frisians all the warlike people standing outside the northern borders of what was Rome and the Romans never went any further.
Gee talk about what ifs'? Ha ha ha .
 

Log in to remove this ad.

JoondalupJ said:
I was actually referring to Attilla , the Hun. Who had done some battle winning and deal making with the late and somewhat done over, Roman Empire, I believe he died quite soon after either making more pacts with the Romans or was preparing to destroy them some more, his warriors, sort of melted away after his death.
Was he not some kind of ally for the Romans and a buffer from danger from the east.
But Imagine if the Huns had have gone much much further into the west, then.

Ghengis and family would have been there quite a few centuries after that I think?
So to have a "what if" scenario , Ghengis's hordes may have run into a settled but very warlike tribes of Huns in great numbers, who may have already destroyed some of the middle eastern parts that the Romans had occupied on and off.
The whole world would have been a different place.
Or perhaps Ghengis would have already been a member of a gigantic Hun empire, I wonder if even Islam would have got a start if that had happened. The Huns were warlike tribes off the steppes, bow and arrow horse riding nomadic hunter killers, just like Ghengis's Mongols became. Maybe even the same people, I wonder what happens if Ghengis never goes to China, and the Chinese develop , what?
I wonder if the Mameluke's and Baybar their warrior king, I think that's his name, if they had never been there to finish off the remains of the Crusaders , well there may have been no Crusades , no Muslims,just the HUN.

But here's a juicy scenario, say that Attila's people and warriors did destroy Rome and their empire, and moved to the west into Gaul and so on, then a little north, well 3 or 4 centuries of settling may have seen them run into another amazing bunch of hunter killers , the Vikings , and all of northern Germania, outside the Roman Empire. Saxons Frisians all the warlike people standing outside the northern borders of what was Rome and the Romans never went any further.
Gee talk about what ifs'? Ha ha ha .
Click to expand...

And if there had been no Mongols, Baybars wouldn't have been a Mamluk.;)
 
I don't know if this has already been done.
What if the Normandy landings had failed in June 1944. Yes the Soviets would still have been in Poland and Rumania but Hitler could have transferred his West Front troops to push the Allies out of Italy and halt the Soviets on the German border and bring about a stalemate.
In this scenario would the US drop a nuclear weapon on Berlin in 1945 to bring Germany to a position of unconditional surrender?
 
Present Not Past said:
I don't know if this has already been done.
What if the Normandy landings had failed in June 1944. Yes the Soviets would still have been in Poland and Rumania but Hitler could have transferred his West Front troops to push the Allies out of Italy and halt the Soviets on the German border and bring about a stalemate.
In this scenario would the US drop a nuclear weapon on Berlin in 1945 to bring Germany to a position of unconditional surrender?
Click to expand...
The Germans weren't stopping the Russians regardless, unless they left the entire western front completely exposed.
 
telsor said:
An invasion of the UK wouldn't have taken that many men...Indeed, the logistic requirements would have dictated that they would have very few men over there unless they somehow scared the Royal Navy into letting them send boats across, and unless they did there would be very little by way of tanks and heavy equipment. A Ju-52 could carry about 2.5 Tonnes, some of the bombers a bit more, but in both cases there would have been restrictions when it came to loading and unloading some of the odd shapes.

So you'd be talking a mainly infantry army that largely relied on the Luftwaffe for 'artillery' support, when it could get through the RAF. (they could probably have gotten some 75mm howitzers and 50mm AT guns across, but they wouldn't have had a hell of a lot of shells, and probably would have needed captured horses/vehicles to move them around). I suppose in theory they might have been able to dismantle a Pz1 tank, fly it across and put it back together, but it really would have been a massive effort for not much.

Numbers wise, the Germans would have built up to maybe 50K troops, and would have been able to maintain that number (they had plenty of potential replacements after all), while the Brits would have had maybe 338K from Dunkirk, so call it 400K who were trained, but largely disorganised, demoralised and poorly equipped (most wouldn't even have rifles) and perhaps as many as a million home guard (completely untrained, and almost all without weapons).

So basically, the Germans would have been trying to overrun as much as they could as quickly as they could, while the Brits would have been trying to slow them down to give their factories time to produce some equipment for them and running a guerilla/partisan campaign to force the Germans to keep as many of their men as possible behind the lines.

While I think the Germans would have been able to take large chunks of England, I think it would have come down to if the Brits would have surrendered, because I doubt they would have been able to keep enough men over their to hold onto their gains. A slower campaign might have secured the SE corner of England, but the Brits would probably have taken it back before too long (a month or 2).

Perhaps the most significant strategic effect of any attack would have been the Royal Navy would take a serious beating trying to block the channel, which could have been severe enough that it would have mean the UK lost the battle of the Atlantic and lost the war that way...
Click to expand...

I have another what if scenario for the future not the past.
What if the world of modern technology proceeds to make machinery and robots so advanced that not 30% but maybe 60% of the worlds population are out of work.
In a way, we are already heading down that track ?
And what ever experts say , it'll be nothing like the industrial revolution, it will be monstrous compared to that.
We are advancing in technology quite marvellously I suppose in one sense , but what happens when we go too far, when even now lots of machines do the work of humans.
How do we pay people to live , or spend and give what remains of the work force something to do.
I think we have advanced to a point where governments all over the world start to think about this, maybe global warming means zilch , we may be making ourselves extinct with our own advancement..
I can see we are on the brink of... what? The beginning of the end, or just the end?
Its a real question? Love some thoughts on that!
 
JoondalupJ said:
I have another what if scenario for the future not the past.
What if the world of modern technology proceeds to make machinery and robots so advanced that not 30% but maybe 60% of the worlds population are out of work.
In a way, we are already heading down that track ?
And what ever experts say , it'll be nothing like the industrial revolution, it will be monstrous compared to that.
We are advancing in technology quite marvellously I suppose in one sense , but what happens when we go too far, when even now lots of machines do the work of humans.
How do we pay people to live , or spend and give what remains of the work force something to do.
I think we have advanced to a point where governments all over the world start to think about this, maybe global warming means zilch , we may be making ourselves extinct with our own advancement..
I can see we are on the brink of... what? The beginning of the end, or just the end?
Its a real question? Love some thoughts on that!
Click to expand...
This is being discussed. Look up universal income for more details.
 
Not sure if its been mentioned but the Battle of Teutoberg Forest - Rome and Augustus' most decisive defeat and that they were never able to conquer Germania. The Western Roman Empire ended up falling due to the many raids in the following centuries of Germanic tribes. Arguably, had Rome conquered the territory east of the Rhine the Angles and Saxons would not have gone on to displace the Romans in Britain - Europe would been configured very differently.
 
Present Not Past said:
I don't know if this has already been done.
What if the Normandy landings had failed in June 1944. Yes the Soviets would still have been in Poland and Rumania but Hitler could have transferred his West Front troops to push the Allies out of Italy and halt the Soviets on the German border and bring about a stalemate.
In this scenario would the US drop a nuclear weapon on Berlin in 1945 to bring Germany to a position of unconditional surrender?
Click to expand...
Nah. Even if Normandy failed the Germans were in real trouble. The question should be what if Operation Bagration failed on the Eastern Front - Bagration smashed Army Group Centre and isolated the bulk of AG North in the Baltics, as well as cutting AG North and AG Ukraine off from each other.

If Normandy failed, it's more a question of how far the Russians got. Even if the Western Front divisions redeployed they were nowhere near enough to replace what was lost by the Germans in Bagration. Maybe the war stalls to '46? Russians are the big winners.

My favourite what-if - what if Operation Michael broke through and seized Paris in 1918?
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Striker475 said:
If Normandy failed, it's more a question of how far the Russians got. Even if the Western Front divisions redeployed they were nowhere near enough to replace what was lost by the Germans in Bagration. Maybe the war stalls to '46? Russians are the big winners.

My favourite what-if - what if Operation Michael broke through and seized Paris in 1918?
Click to expand...
That was exactly my what if scenario. The US defeats Japan in August 1945 with 2 atomic bombs however the war in Europe is still raging.
Does the US then turn around and use nuclear weapons in Europe? If not, why not if 1,000s of lives are still to be lost in defeating Germany - the reason given for nuking Japan?
 
Present Not Past said:
That was exactly my what if scenario. The US defeats Japan in August 1945 with 2 atomic bombs however the war in Europe is still raging.
Does the US then turn around and use nuclear weapons in Europe? If not, why not if 1,000s of lives are still to be lost in defeating Germany - the reason given for nuking Japan?
Click to expand...
Europeans are white , Asians are not

Its my belief it was location that determined that answer. Island/China/Korea v the home of many emigrants and the lands around.
 
Present Not Past said:
That's interesting. So instead of Jews being exterminated in Europe, you have Asians being nuked in Asia.
Click to expand...
Its one thought. The other may have been intel that showed/said that Japan was a proud race who would fight to the last person and this was one way to shock them into surrender
 
I wonder about what the world would look like if the Roman Empire didn't fall - ie if Constantinople holds out against the Ottomans in 1453. You can argue that the fall of the ERE was inevitable, but so many things had to chip away at it to get to that point - the sack by the Crusaders, failure of the Kombenoi reatoration, etc. Constantinople had survived so much to that point it doesn't seem impossible that they hang on.

Let's say the ERE survives the Ottomans. To my mind, you get:

- more mix between East and West. The fall of Constantinople and reconquista in Spain drew pretty clear lines between the Islamic and Christian worlds. I'd imagine in this scenario there is a lot more interaction.

- probably no Columbus expedition as the passage to India remains open. When Europeans inevitably head west, the Americas are probably colonised in. Vastly different way

- a much different looking Balkans, with a powerful orthodox realm at its centre. How much conflict does that change?

- maybe a very different renaissance. Hard to search for inspiration in the classical romans if they are still around

- a crazy different path in the 19th and 20th centuries. What does Napoleon do if say, Russia and the Romans are allied? How does the balance of power, so critical to the early 20c and wwi shift if it is the Eomans rather than the Ottomans? What about the rise of fascism and communism?

It boggles my mind to think about anyway
 
Present Not Past said:
That was exactly my what if scenario. The US defeats Japan in August 1945 with 2 atomic bombs however the war in Europe is still raging.
Does the US then turn around and use nuclear weapons in Europe? If not, why not if 1,000s of lives are still to be lost in defeating Germany - the reason given for nuking Japan?
Click to expand...

I think the Germans know when they are defeated , and its worthless, but Japan never know when they are beaten, hence an extreme action to finish, that theory is backed I guess by the fact that the Japanese actually were preparing for the full boots on ground attack from the Allies, even training kids to fight, and I think some government people and the Emperor were seeing the futility when one ( compared to today,a small one) atom bomb then another was dropped.
I don't think it could have happened with Germany, they were done on two sides and from the south in Italy as well.
AND KNEW IT! Japan was Japan, Germany was Germany and Nazism, there was a morality question in Germany.

Also the Americans had a huge bone to pick with Japan after Pearl Harbour, you reckon they weren't infuriated by that ambush, the fact that they had an idea that something might happen with Japan and the fact that they were totally unprepared for it , suggests to me that they were truly taken by surprise and off guard, felt belittled and underestimated behaved like easily led fools,and 2 Nukes on Japan went part of the way to satisfying their revenge. Then they helped Japan become a big ally and a bloody powerful economic strength.
Revenge and guilt served all the reasons for what happened.!
 
JoondalupJ said:
I think the Germans know when they are defeated , and its worthless, but Japan never know when they are beaten, hence an extreme action to finish, that theory is backed I guess by the fact that the Japanese actually were preparing for the full boots on ground attack from the Allies, even training kids to fight, and I think some government people and the Emperor were seeing the futility when one ( compared to today,a small one) atom bomb then another was dropped.
I don't think it could have happened with Germany, they were done on two sides and from the south in Italy as well.
AND KNEW IT! Japan was Japan, Germany was Germany and Nazism, there was a morality question in Germany.
Also the Americans had a huge bone to pick with Japan after Pearl Harbour, you reckon they weren't infuriated by that ambush, the fact that they had an idea
Click to expand...
My what if scenario was about what if the Western Front had failed from the start and they were looking at another 12 months before they could rebuild another invasion force.The US certainly wouldn't have used nuclear weapons if they had had troops on the ground in Europe.
 
Suppose Britain had stayed out of the war or come in much later

Most of Europe would have been stripped of young men. Britain could have cleaned up

The only downside is britains war technology would have been decades behind
 
Pessimistic said:
Suppose Britain had stayed out of the war or come in much later

Most of Europe would have been stripped of young men. Britain could have cleaned up

The only downside is britains war technology would have been decades behind
Click to expand...
And they would have lost all of North Africa and the Mediterranean including Malta, Egypt and the Suez Canal.
 
Some strange things happen. Napoleon conquered Portugal and the emporer etc moved to brasil

When Portugal was liberated the guy sent his son back to Lisbon. It seems brasil worked its charm on him like millions of foreigners before and since

Hence Brazil's independence is not so clear cut
 
Pessimistic said:
Some strange things happen. Napoleon conquered Portugal and the emporer etc moved to brasil

When Portugal was liberated the guy sent his son back to Lisbon. It seems brasil worked its charm on him like millions of foreigners before and since

Hence Brazil's independence is not so clear cut
Click to expand...

I think you'll find that it was the King, John, who returned to Portugal, leaving his son Prince Peter in Brazil, where he eventually headed up the independence movement.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top