Alternate Time-lines (or what would have happened if ...)

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

This is the result of some discussions in the time travel thread.

 

I propose we accept the (fictional) Ghaldron-Hesthor parallel universe travel theory (H. Beam Piper) and fantasize about what would the time-line look like if things had gone differently.

 

I want to start with the idea of Aryan-Transpacific.  If the Aryan migrations that went west in our time line had gone east and landed in North America after colonizing all of Asia, what would things look like now?

 

Suggested readings by H. Beam Piper: Paratime Police novelettes and Lord Kalvan of Other When.

 

My speculation:

 

We'd all be speaking a bastardized Sino-Greek dialect, and current modern history would not have happened in Europe.  England would still hold all of France and maybe more.  Poland would include what is now the European part of Russia.  Magic would be loose in the world.

[TekindusT 3,809]

Well, if they had gone east and reached the Americas, for sure the history that happened in Europe BC (tribal invasions, rise and fall of ancient empires, dark ages, and the age of the new empires) would have happened in what today are the temperate zones of US and Mexico. Perhaps a given Christopher Columbus would have discovered the "primitive" Europeans while trying to reach the Indias by circumnavigating the Cape Horn. Just saying.

 

Getting closer to our days, one of the scenarios MandelSoft proposed in the other thread, what if the Dutch had never sold their New Amsterdam territories?

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

Depends on what the relationship would have been with the Natives.  The Huron confederacy might well have wound up holding most of the continent with the European colonies incorporated.  The problem was the Spanish Empire eating up the southern part of the continent.  And, didn't Spain conquer the Dutch somewhere in there?

[Fatherted 129]

What if WWI had never occurred?

 

I believe WWII would not have happened nor its atrocities as it was born out of Germany's "failure state" status. However, later in history something far worse of a similar nature would have happened. Simply reduction to ashes with nuclear bombs and hatred of everyone different. We have been taught something by WWII, and we must never forget.

[MandelSoft 2,770]

And, didn't Spain conquer the Dutch somewhere in there?

 

That was from before we started our colonisation. We declared independence from Spain, so Protestantism could thrive here. Of course, Spain didn't like that, and so the Eighty Year War started. During this war, the Netherlands became the most powerful nation of the world with it's colonies in Indonesia and North America and a vast trading empire. Of course, all great nations had to end, and for the Netherlands, it fell apart at the end of the 17th Century, when the VOC went bankrupt.

 

Other fun fact: during this age, we invented the stock market... and the stock market crisis (tulip craze)

[TekindusT 3,809]

 

And, didn't Spain conquer the Dutch somewhere in there?

 

That was from before we started our colonisation. We declared independence from Spain, so Protestantism could thrive here. Of course, Spain didn't like that, and so the Eighty Year War started. During this war, the Netherlands became the most powerful nation of the world with it's colonies in Indonesia and North America and a vast trading empire. Of course, all great nations had to end, and for the Netherlands, it fell apart at the end of the 17th Century, when the VOC went bankrupt.

 

Other fun fact: during this age, we invented the stock market... and the stock market crisis (tulip craze)

 

 

Calling the Spanish posession (*) on the Netherlands a "conquer" is something way too optimistic. By that time, the Netherlands "belonged" to the Habsburgs dynasty, which ruled the Spanish empire by then, because the king was also the Duke of Burgundy due to lineage stuff. In my opinion, after observing how the facts went on that era, Spain was much more pending on what was going on on the South American real colonies than on the possessions on Europe.

 

Not much remains from that era, though. A lot of Belgian and Dutch cities have their own names in Spanish, because of this rule. Bruselas (Brussels), Brujas (Brugge), Lieja (Liège), La Haya (Den Haag), Amberes (Antwerp), Gante (Ghent) and so on...

 

(*) Is it important not to forget that the name Spain has been applied historically to that era. Spain as a country never existed until year 1715. Before that time, the Iberian peninsula was ruled by a bunch of kingdoms united via kind of complex dynastic unions, which called themselves "the Spains".

[Bdub01 201]

Here's a fun one . What if the astroid that allegedly killed off the dinosaurs didn't happen. Would humans not exist and dinosaurs still roam the earth?

[APSMS 1,893]

Here's a fun one . What if the astroid that allegedly killed off the dinosaurs didn't happen. Would humans not exist and dinosaurs still roam the earth?

That might be going back a bit too far...There are a lot of people who'd disagree with you on that point anyways (like me); modern history is far more relevant to dissect, and quite frankly no one whould care if humans weren't around... well, us living today wouldn't, anyways; I mean, can you mourn for something that you have no knowledge (and awareness) of?

 

This is an interesting idea concerning time-travel and changing the past in modern fiction, specifically as regards WW2 and Hitler.

[Bdub01 201]

This is an interesting idea concerning time-travel and changing the past in modern fiction, specifically as regards WW2 and Hitler.

I tend to believe that if Hitler had been taken out before he got good and started the Soviet Union would have started a war. Who knows WWII and WWIII would have been rolled into one massive war. If WWII hadn't occurred or at least America hadn't been in the war the woman's lib movement would have been set back by decades!!!

[Prophet42 1,503]

Here is a another possible time-line.  During the American Civil war, the North and South came to a draw and America was forever split into two countries.  America did not become the world power that it became in this time-line.  Would communism have spread farther than it did?.  Would WWI and WWII have had different outcomes?

[ROFLyoshi 1,760]

Do you mean the North South split that currently plagues the Koreas? Or a situation where the two countries Form a working relationship with each other and shared history, but remain independent of one another due to ideological reasons.

I think that communism would not take power as the Confederate States would be especially adverse to it and would create a NATO style pact with the Northern States.

Personally I believe the latter would happen as one can look at the War of 1812 between Canada (the colonies of England) and the independent US. That war was quite fierce yet the countries have a close relationship.

[Terring 6,476]

Heron of Alexandria was an ancient Greek mathematician and engineer. He is considered the greatest experimenter of antiquity and his work is representative of the Hellenistic scientific tradition. Heron published a well recognized description of a steam-powered device called an aeolipile, sometimes called a "Hero engine".
 


What if the Roman Empire had used Heron's ideas? Would we had ancient trains and railroads, way before the 1829 Stephenson's Rocket, and probably an ancient Industrial Revolution as well?

[ROFLyoshi 1,760]

Probably not as a lot of trade was still sea based and boats served that purpose.

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

Let's take a simple switch in modern history:  WILKIE DEFEATS ROOSEVELT.

 

It is pretty well known now that Roosevelt and Co. provoked the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbour.  What do you suppose would have happened with Wendell Wilkie in the Oval Office.  He was a virtual cousin of Neville 'Peace in Our Time' Chamberlain. 

 

Scenario:  The U.S. agrees to ignore the Japanese expansion through a non-aggression pact.  The U.S. ignores the depredations of the Japanese in the Pacific.  Australia falls to Japan.  Because the U.S. stays out of the European war, Hitler wins.  The British Royal Family escapes to Canada, Britain is occupied and is a major thorn in the guts of Herr Hitler.

 

Take it away, imaginations.

[Terring 6,476]

Maybe the technology of ancient trains would encourage the Roman Empire to expand its territory even more. But wait a minute, how about ancient steam powered cars and trucks as well? Something like this...

 

[Bdub01 201]

Maybe the technology of ancient trains would encourage the Roman Empire to expand its territory even more. But wait a minute, how about ancient steam powered cars and trucks as well?

If the Romans had trains they could have sent their legions to help stem the tide of the barbarian invasions but Rome would have fallen eventually unless they figured out how to survive without slaves. But imagine what type of transportation we would have nowadays.

[Munchiez 74]

 

Maybe the technology of ancient trains would encourage the Roman Empire to expand its territory even more. But wait a minute, how about ancient steam powered cars and trucks as well?

If the Romans had trains they could have sent their legions to help stem the tide of the barbarian invasions but Rome would have fallen eventually unless they figured out how to survive without slaves. But imagine what type of transportation we would have nowadays.

 

It would be mind boggling to see the technology now if that did happen. I suppose Rome, in the end, would still fall as well. Even if it did use the technology to send it's troops elsewhere to conquer.

 

I often thought about this: What if the U.S Did NOT drop nuclear payloads on Hiroshima and Nagasaki? What would the outcome of World War II in the Pacific had been? Disaster filled? It seems that the way to end the war there was to use horrible weapons to end the conflict. Some will argue that it was not necessary, but if we look back it did force their surrender. If the United States had not have dropped the bombs, would World War II continue further in the Pacific for say, a year or two more?

[TekindusT 3,809]

 

 

Maybe the technology of ancient trains would encourage the Roman Empire to expand its territory even more. But wait a minute, how about ancient steam powered cars and trucks as well?

If the Romans had trains they could have sent their legions to help stem the tide of the barbarian invasions but Rome would have fallen eventually unless they figured out how to survive without slaves. But imagine what type of transportation we would have nowadays.

 

It would be mind boggling to see the technology now if that did happen. I suppose Rome, in the end, would still fall as well. Even if it did use the technology to send it's troops elsewhere to conquer.

 

Definately if the Roman empire had been steam-powered, it would have lasted much much longer. Even though that war was the main income source of Rome (pillages and managing the conquered territory); commerce would have flourished even more and the engineering feats we know today the Romans built, would be toys compared to what they could have achieved with, so to say, steam-powered cranes.

 

Troops could be transported way faster to the battlefields, soon a new generation of catapults and trebuchets would appear steam-powered... I have no doubt that everything above the Sahara desert and west of the Ural would be Rome by now.

 

A form of industrailization would have appeared, perhaps more primitive than the industrialization we know. Diseases would keep overpopulation controlled, so there would still be coal to burn. At some point, they would discover that oil could also be burnt in large quantities to make the water boil.

 

Today's Empire would be perhaps not in the form of an empire, perhaps it would have evolved politically; but I'm sure we would be speaking latin at this side of the Atlantic ocean.

[jmsepe 2,039]

Hmm. Interesting topic. However, there are many key events in history that when altered can cause big changes. For me, I would rather consider the question "What would have happened if religion (all) was not created?". I know this is the religion thread but I find this question appropriate here. Would that possibly mean no hindrance to developments (scientific and such), no religious wars (100 years war and Islamic conquests), no discriminatory rules (Laws against LGBT, drugs, et al), division of principles (Islamic laws of marriage and Christian viewpoint of marriage) and others that I have failed to mention but is the result of religion?  

 

In that case, would the no religion since the beginning actually result to a better society?

 

Just pondering, no offense intended once again. 

[ROFLyoshi 1,760]

Interesting... It could go both ways as often in the Middle Ages, the Church was the only organisation with enough money to fund projects.

Might be going a bit far back but, 1066. The Norman invasion is repealed, Harold remains the Saxon King of England.

[Terring 6,476]

Here is an other scenario. What if the first man on the Moon was not an American, but a Soviet? Would we have colonies on Mars and a more powerful Soviet Union?

[jmsepe 2,039]

Hmm I think not, USSR's fate was devastated by economic problems, I don't see how putting the first man into the moon changes anything. After all, wasn't USSR the first to send man into space?

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

I like the 1066 scenario, but let's consider what could have happened after the Norman conquest without the imprisonment of Richard II.  Suppose the Plantagenet line was still on the throne of England including Burgundy and Aquitaine as well as most of France.  That England and not Spain had landed and exploited central America including Mexico and the rest of North America split between the British Empire and the Huron Confederacy at the Mississippi. 

 

And one more little twist:  some dreary old monk in an English monastery found out how to make magic work in lieu of science, so that there were actually thaumaturgical laws that ruled the Church, and science was kind of a hedge thing.  Technology stalled at steam. 

 

See the Lord D'Arcy series by Randall Garrett.

 

Oh, and by the way, the menace from the east is Poland which includes Russia.

[Bdub01 201]

Hmm. Interesting topic. However, there are many key events in history that when altered can cause big changes. For me, I would rather consider the question "What would have happened if religion (all) was not created?". I know this is the religion thread but I find this question appropriate here. Would that possibly mean no hindrance to developments (scientific and such), no religious wars (100 years war and Islamic conquests), no discriminatory rules (Laws against LGBT, drugs, et al), division of principles (Islamic laws of marriage and Christian viewpoint of marriage) and others that I have failed to mention but is the result of religion?

In that case, would the no religion since the beginning actually result to a better society?

Believe it or not South Park (of all things) did a two part episode of that senerio where in the future there was no religion at all but there were still massive wars about different aspects of atheism. I know SP is just a cartoon not to be taken seriously but if there was some sort of parallel universe out there where there was no religion, no tree huggers, no Jesus, no Mohhammed etc , it's in human nature to fight. There would still be wars for land, water, ecenomical reasons and so on. Look at the most devestating war in human history, WWII not fought about religion at all. All sides may have used a god for propaganda but the war was not about religion.

As long as some humans are in charge of other humans war and fighting is inevitable. That's my two simoleans anyway.

[Fatherted 129]

I like the 1066 scenario, but let's consider what could have happened after the Norman conquest without the imprisonment of Richard II.  Suppose the Plantagenet line was still on the throne of England including Burgundy and Aquitaine as well as most of France.  That England and not Spain had landed and exploited central America including Mexico and the rest of North America split between the British Empire and the Huron Confederacy at the Mississippi. 

 

And one more little twist:  some dreary old monk in an English monastery found out how to make magic work in lieu of science, so that there were actually thaumaturgical laws that ruled the Church, and science was kind of a hedge thing.  Technology stalled at steam. 

 

See the Lord D'Arcy series by Randall Garrett.

 

Oh, and by the way, the menace from the east is Poland which includes Russia.

I think I'll start with the stall at steam, as Kings are rather generic and history has proven that all dictators more or less work the same way. (Kill all protestors, invade land that will bring profit, wage war with your enemies.)

 

If tech stalled at steam, isn't that rather a bit later in the timeline? Never mind, I'll go ahead and answer this.

 

So we develop steam powered guns is the first thing, it's inevitable. By 1200 (assuming that steam is prominent) we have developed explosive steam weapons using a complex pressure-leakage system which causes the "bomb" casing to explode with tremendous force. Wars will break out as steam is used (alongside horses) to take over various kingdoms using the power of steam weapons. Wars will be bloodier than before as swords require aim whereas explosives will burn and kill anything nearby.

 

Russia and Poland, unaware of this development, move roughly along our current path of evolution of technology, since they are kept off Euro borders. As Europe rips itself to shreds using steam and horses (and a little magic), Russia develops radio, automobiles and complex weapons. Not understanding the potential danger of the atom bomb they develop in the sixties, they decide to deploy one on French-Europe and see what happens, by using primitive air-developments. By now Russia has moved into a Soviet-Style government and is looking to break its borders on the west side. 

 

Deployed over France with the pilot killed by the bomb, the Russians and Polish move to see their newfound empire, believing the bomb is a one-off kill then safe. As they walk into the wasteland that is France, the army begin dying. Josef (or his equivalent) declares it an enemy's weapon and orders the invasion of Britain. When they see steam weapons, they laugh and break through the divided ranks of a depleted army. Russia controls Europe and the French wasteland.

 

The end.

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

Could do with some more plot.  What if the Church adopts magic the same way it adopted science in the middle ages?  Remember the Church will have spread to the entire western world including the Russias during this period.  The 'science' development in the Russias just gets people burned at the stake, so it never takes off, but the Eastern countries do develop magic and are able to use the various laws like the law of contagion to do very destructive things.  At the same time, the 'west' is developing further technology in thaumaturgy and has developed a kill at a distance weapon that simply shuts down a body by stopping the heart or some other vital function.

 

Now, with the various espionage networks, Casimir XVII tackles the weapons establishment of John XII and steals one of the primary weapons.  It is the job of the Duke of Burgundy (John's younger brother), who is head of security to stop this from getting to Warsaw.  He uses his best agent, Lord D'Arcy and the chief forensic sorcerer, one Sean O'Lachlain, to pursue the miscreants across Europe.

 

You continue this plot if you like.  I really dislike shortcuts with history and dismissing characters with a stereotype.

[jmsepe 2,039]

 

Hmm. Interesting topic. However, there are many key events in history that when altered can cause big changes. For me, I would rather consider the question "What would have happened if religion (all) was not created?". I know this is the religion thread but I find this question appropriate here. Would that possibly mean no hindrance to developments (scientific and such), no religious wars (100 years war and Islamic conquests), no discriminatory rules (Laws against LGBT, drugs, et al), division of principles (Islamic laws of marriage and Christian viewpoint of marriage) and others that I have failed to mention but is the result of religion?

In that case, would the no religion since the beginning actually result to a better society?

 

Believe it or not South Park (of all things) did a two part episode of that senerio where in the future there was no religion at all but there were still massive wars about different aspects of atheism. I know SP is just a cartoon not to be taken seriously but if there was some sort of parallel universe out there where there was no religion, no tree huggers, no Jesus, no Mohhammed etc , it's in human nature to fight. There would still be wars for land, water, ecenomical reasons and so on. Look at the most devestating war in human history, WWII not fought about religion at all. All sides may have used a god for propaganda but the war was not about religion.

As long as some humans are in charge of other humans war and fighting is inevitable. That's my two simoleans anyway.

 

 

That's one way of looking at it but differences is inevitable. The environment itself is culprit of the diversity of mankind. But allow me to rephrase my question. Could religion be the verdict for greater differences? What I mean is that, religion itself is the cause for FURTHER divisions? 

[Alejandro24 575]

Heron of Alexandria was an ancient Greek mathematician and engineer. He is considered the greatest experimenter of antiquity and his work is representative of the Hellenistic scientific tradition. Heron published a well recognized description of a steam-powered device called an aeolipile, sometimes called a "Hero engine".

 

What if the Roman Empire had used Heron's ideas? Would we had ancient trains and railroads, way before the 1829 Stephenson's Rocket, and probably an ancient Industrial Revolution as well?

 

If the steam power were used since the greeks and romans, probably the dark ages never happened and the humanity would not be delayed by a millenium.

 

But beware, not everything is alter time-lines, It must be supported by a logical hypothesis and not by an ego-thesis.

 

Now, what about the present alter time-lines. For example: what if the arab spring never happened?

 

Also, there is a complete wiki about alter history: http://althistory.wikia.com/wiki/Main_Page

[Duke87 1,070]

I often thought about this: What if the U.S Did NOT drop nuclear payloads on Hiroshima and Nagasaki? What would the outcome of World War II in the Pacific had been? Disaster filled? It seems that the way to end the war there was to use horrible weapons to end the conflict. Some will argue that it was not necessary, but if we look back it did force their surrender. If the United States had not have dropped the bombs, would World War II continue further in the Pacific for say, a year or two more?

 

This depends on how the US approaches the matter. The Japanese were willing to surrender in the early summer of 1945 but not to the "complete and unconditional" terms that the US was demanding. Indeed, the only reason for dropping the A-bombs as opposed to accepting the lesser terms was a question of wanting to show off the power of the United States and send the world a message not to mess with us.

 

So, the most likely alternative history if no A-bombs are dropped is that Japan surrenders in June 1945 with terms that are less crushing to it, it gets to keep more of its military and its emperor. The US wins anyway, so WWII is not really changed. We still have our post-war economic boom. But, with no bombs having been dropped, the cold war perhaps would play out somewhat differently, since if the US had not put on its show of force by nuking Japan, the Soviets may not have responded as aggressively. We may not have had much of a cold war. We may not have ever had a space race or put a man on the moon. We may not have ever had McCarthyism, fallout shelters, or any of that. And the Soviet Union might still exist. Japan, meanwhile, might not be quite as advanced a society as it is, since spending on their military would divert resources that were instead spent building technology and infrastructure.

 

The scenario that the US instead spends another year or two fighting Japan and invading the mainland, losing a lot of lives in the process, etc. that people like to say the atomic bombs eliminated the necessity for is... as I see it, unrealistic. If we did not have atomic bombs or were not willing to use them, we would have had no reason to prolong the war. It would have still ended in 1945, just on somewhat different terms.

[APSMS 1,893]

True Japanese surrender would have only come at the full occupation of the island, which, without surrender, would have meant a systematic extermination of the Japanese people, since every last one of them would have fought for their homeland. The announcement of the emperor was what really forced the hand of the military generals to tell the Japanese people to stand down instead of die. Had the allies not previously committed themselves to total surrender of the Axis powers, this might have been an option. As it was, America had little stomach to face an invasion of the Japanese homeland.

 

I still don't understand the stigma against the A-bombs considering the amount of damage that conventional bombing techniques had on the Japanese civilians; we never apologized for fire-bombing Tokyo and boiling alive 900 000 people as they tried to swim away from the heat (we melted concrete canals; I'm not sure what that looks like), but we did apologize for dropping two bombs that killed around 140 000 people total and prevented the complete and utter annihilation of the Japanese people that would have resulted from America pursuing the goals it had agreed to in Yalta and Potsdam.

 

I think, perhaps, it is hard to "create" religion if at least one of them is true. Sure you can invent false ones, but if at least one is true, it might be hard to conjecture that particular point, since if God is real, then no such religion was merely "created" but is rather how things are supposed to be. Obviously that discussion is for another thread...

 

Finally, as a plot twist, what if Hitler had followed his advisers and his treaties and not attacked the Soviet Union in 1942? Would he have won against GB? would he have at least reduced British harassment to nil and strengthened his hold on his existing territories? Would he have been better prepared for an invasion of Russia because the winter coats would have been prepared? German European conquest, GO! (well, not really; Hitler was evil, but you get the gist)