Alternate history scenarios you've never seen that would be interesting to explore

[Username Redacted]

3. What if Sigmund Freud had taken up cooking instead?

My guess. Lots and lots of dick shaped cakes.

 

[Thaluikhain]

Hmmm...if the SAS or various intelligence services had been a bit less effective in reducing Argentine Exocet missile capability during the Falklands War, could have led to strikes against UK aircraft carriers, the UK wouldn't have been able to land troops and secure a devastating victory. Thatcher's government wouldn't have gotten a massive boost in popularity.

Couple scenarios in mind.
What if the 9/11 bombings failed and how would American politics differ in regards to security vs freedom?

I'd guess it wouldn't make too much difference, really. The people who died were almost unimportant, the symbolism of a terrorist attack is still (largely) there even if it fails.

What if alarm clocks were never invented and humanity still worked and slept in relation to the sun? Where would we be from a technological standpoint?

An interesting idea, though there's so many ways to build one, hard to miss them all.

 

[Nickolai77]

The fundamental reasons why the Romans didn't industrialise is because of cheap and abundant supply of slaves and the lack of limitations of financial liability. The industrial revolution occurred because of the of two things, the shortage of labour and the creation of modern capitalism. The romans had a banking system but because of the lack limitation of liability that occurs when you distinguish between personal and a company meant that a failure of business could mean you and your family could be sold as slaves. The invention of the limited liability company meant that going into business with a new idea would not be risking your entire life on. This also reduced the power of the rich because lending now carried risk. The shortage of labour also meant that to increase production you needed to get more product made by the same person in the same time. Roman slavery means you just increased the number slaves to increase production. Capital investment in machinery was risking your freedom and did not make financial sense because the cost of just buying more slaves was lower.

That was quite an interesting read, where did you find this out? One thing I would point out is that once the Empire stopped expanding under the rule of Hadrian then the supply of new slaves would have been reduced, driving up slave prices and arguably providing an incentive to increase production by other means (like mechanisation of production technology). Slaves also progressively gained more and more rights as the Roman Empire continued, and Christians and Stoics both opposed the ill-treatment of slaves, some even advocating banning slavery outright. One could loosely speculate that slavery might been phased out of the Roman Empire had it lasted a few more hundred years.


***

On the subject of the US not entering into WW1, the Allies would still have won had America not joined on the 11th hour but victory would have been much more costly, and war would have likely dragged on until 1919. Perhaps the influx of Spanish Flu might have forced both sides to the negotiating table.

One could argue that if America had not entered the room, the Germans would have had more bargaining power and the Treaty of Versailles would have been much less harsher. German reparation payments would have been milder, no German war-guilt clause, and Germany's territorial loses milder. This would have given Germany an easier ride during the Great Depression, and possibly prevented Hitler's rise to power.

One could therefore argue that, if it wasn't for the Americans intervening in WW1, we wouldn't have had a WW2 in Europe!

 

[Thaluikhain]

One could argue that if America had not entered the room, the Germans would have had more bargaining power and the Treaty of Versailles would have been much less harsher. German reparation payments would have been milder, no German war-guilt clause, and Germany's territorial loses milder. This would have given Germany an easier ride during the Great Depression, and possibly prevented Hitler's rise to power.

I thought it'd be the other way around. One of the big problems was that Wilson made promises in good faith that were accepted, but weren't agreed upon back home. So the other powers had to scrabble about and change their decisions in a fairly messy way, which led to problems down the line.

 

[Shock and Awe]

What if the US had sided with the German Empire in the first world war? I always thought that would be a fascinating scenario and one that is not as odd as it sounds.

 

[Reynaert]

I wonder what would have happened if the Spartacist uprising [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spartacist_uprising] succeeded.

 

[Thaluikhain]

What if the US had sided with the German Empire in the first world war? I always thought that would be a fascinating scenario and one that is not as odd as it sounds.

Yeah, those are the interesting ones. Not just "other side wins for no reason", but "the sides were different".

Likewise, Germany could have responded to Japan entering WW2 by declaring war on them in support of the US, not the other way around. Would have given a few people quite a headache.

 

[Nickolai77]

One could argue that if America had not entered the room, the Germans would have had more bargaining power and the Treaty of Versailles would have been much less harsher. German reparation payments would have been milder, no German war-guilt clause, and Germany's territorial loses milder. This would have given Germany an easier ride during the Great Depression, and possibly prevented Hitler's rise to power.

I thought it'd be the other way around. One of the big problems was that Wilson made promises in good faith that were accepted, but weren't agreed upon back home. So the other powers had to scrabble about and change their decisions in a fairly messy way, which led to problems down the line.

I think the main reasons why the Versailles Treaty was so harsh was because Imperial Germany had little to none bargaining power (The allies could have marched on Berlin with the arrival of the Americans) and pressure from the French president to "break" Germany and make it incapable of waging war again. Britain and America opposed this, and so a compromise was struck which nevertheless crippled Germany and sowed the seeds of resentment which would later support the rise of Hitler.

 

[Roguebubble]

What if the Normans lost the battle of Hastings?

What if the Mongols had invaded Japan?

What if Guy Fawkes succeeded?

What if the Ottomans took Vienna?

 

[verdant monkai]

What would happen if the Vatican influence was overthrown in the medieval period?

Maybe a heroic king using the banner of the cross would declare a crusade against Vatican, he might tell people how greedy and corrupt they were. Showed the people that the Vatican was an establishment built on greed and excess for the elite, leeching of the common people's money and faith.

Maybe he would have gathered a military force of neighbouring countries and other Christian organizations, and marched to Rome. Throwing open the Vaticans treasure vaults and started giving the riches out to the poor then arrested the Pope and all the priests. He would have have been heralded as a living saint he would have cut the ball and chain of the church from humanities leg. Exposing the church for what it was, an establishment built to absorb the peoples money and waste time they could have spent looking after their families. He would have taught the true message of Jesus, that material is not important and you can serve God by helping you're fellow man.

I'm not actually religious I just think it's interesting.

 

[ReservoirAngel]

After seeing a brilliant video about this subject: I'd be interested to see if the full anti-Stratfordian thing actually was real, just how stuff would play out differently.

For those who don't know, anti-Stratfordians are a group of people who believe Shakespeare (who is from Stratford-upon-Avon, hence the name) did not actually write the plays attributed to him. Seems like nothing would really be different, right? But these people have a couple different versions of who they think did write them, and one such possibility if taken with everything it implies would basically seem to suggest that the guy who did write Shakespeare's plays was actually the bastard child of Elizabeth the 1st (you know, the virgin Queen) and thus if the entire theory is correct then after Elizabeth's death she would instead be succeeded on the throne by that dude (and, in a variant, his and Elizabeth's twice-bastard child because yeah, it's that kind of theory) and thus ensure the continuation of the Tutor reign. Which would probably put a major screw in all those things that were only able to happen because the Tutor reign ended. Stuff like the English civil war, the assertion of Parliament as the ruling power as a result, modernism and democracy.

This is also know as the "Prince Tudor Theory." It's a bit weird.

This is all if I'm remembering the idea correctly. But if I am, that'd be an interesting alternate history to take a peek into.

 

[hermes]

Normally I'd go "What if Archduke Franz Ferdinand did not get killed" but I changed it...

Since you are not taking it, I will. The murder of Archduke Ferdinand triggered one the most transformative periods in Western history, and it was triggered by a single man in a very unlucky series of coincidences. If it wasn't for it, there would be no WW 1, no WW 2, no UE or UN, and we would live in something closer to the Victorian era.

 

[New Frontiersman]

I would love to see an alternate history story about the outcome of a failed Reconquista. Had the Muslims not been ejected from Spain, and thus no Columbus or Spanish Inquisition, how would the modern world look today? Would Islam be less prone to extremism? How would a strong Muslim state have affected British and French colonialism post-WWI? Would there even be a state of Israel now? What would be the status of the "New World"?

I'd have loved to see the Muslim Golden Age continue, or at the very least Al-Andalus remain a sovereign (possibly even dominant?) state in Iberia. Who knows? Maybe after a few more generations, tolerance could've become a major part of Spainish/Islamic culture, to the point that even in modern times Spain would stand as a beacon of religious unity?

I think that would be a fascinating alternate history to examine. After all Al-Andalus was a beacon of learning and tolerance in an otherwise ignorant and intolerant Europe at the time. Had it survived it'd be interesting the think how the world might be different. It's possible that Christian Europeans would have never ventured into the Western Hemisphere, or maybe that Muslims would have instead. European politics would certainly be different.

If the Islamic Golden age had continued, it may very well have been that today Islamic states may have been the dominant world powers instead of primarily Christian ones. It would be interesting to consider.

As for me though, I think an interesting alternate history to look at would be one where Europeans never reached the Western Hemisphere and looking at how the various Native American nations and civilizations might've been different if they were able to continue without outside domination. Or if there was contact between Europe and the Americas, at least examining how things might be different if the Americas were never conquered and the relationships between Native Americans and Europeans was defined by trade rather than conquest and genocide.

Unlike a lot of people on here I've seen quite a few alternate history scenarios examining how things might be different if Rome survived into the modern era, on the other hand those all focus on "classical" Rome and I'd be interested in one that looked at how things might have been different if the Roman Empire had survived to the modern day from the Middle Ages. So, if Justinian's conquests hadn't been lost after his death, or if the Fourth Crusade never happened and the Roman Empire was able to survive from that point on, rather than the usual scenario.

 

[Albino Boo]

That was quite an interesting read, where did you find this out? One thing I would point out is that once the Empire stopped expanding under the rule of Hadrian then the supply of new slaves would have been reduced, driving up slave prices and arguably providing an incentive to increase production by other means (like mechanisation of production technology). Slaves also progressively gained more and more rights as the Roman Empire continued, and Christians and Stoics both opposed the ill-treatment of slaves, some even advocating banning slavery outright. One could loosely speculate that slavery might been phased out of the Roman Empire had it lasted a few more hundred years.

The empire's borders were not sealed trade moved across the Rhine and Danube. Luxury goods and wine was traded for slaves and grain. The greek cities of the crimea traded for grain and slaves from up and down the dnieper and dniester rivers. Some of the main centres of manufacturing of samian ware were on the Rhine for this reason. The slave trade from the Caucuses continued into the late 19th century. In fact Boris Johnson's great great grandmother was slave from the Caucuses. The supply of slaves was not all external, being born a slave, debt slavery and enslavement for criminal activity all produced slaves. As the 18th century African slave trade proved you don't need wars to produce a large numbers of slaves.

 

[bauke67]

What if the Ottomans had managed to take Vienna and gain a foothold in western europe? Would the remaining German states have quickly fallen to them as well? Or perhaps a renewed crusade would've destroyed the Ottomans centuries before they historically ceased to be.

Also: what if Alexander the great hadn't died at age thirty but lived on to be 80? Would he have managed to pull of his intended invasions of Arabia and Africa(Carthage)? If he'd managed to have an heir rocognised by everyone could his empire have lasted? What would the world today look like if the Romans hadn't been able to expand at the cost of the Carthaginians and the Greeks? A very wide range of opportunities had his death been averted.

 

[Godhead]

What if Barabbas was to be convicted rather than Jesus. That would certainly make for some interesting changes on how Christianity grew.

 

[MXRom]

What if the Aztecs were never wiped out? What if they beat the Spaniards back?

I think I saw some work somewhere with a modern era South America controlled by the Aztec Empire. Human sacrifice was considered a normal thing and a whole different line of issues were on the political table.

 

[TheSYLOH]

What if USA never bombed Japan to end WWII?

If by bombing you mean nuking Hiroshima/Nagasaki, there was a decent comic series called "Storming Paradise"
In which Oppenheimer and Co accidentally blew themselves up during the Trinity Test.
It's worth a look, but the ending lacks impact.

 

[The Rogue Wolf]

Consider the Baghdad Battery [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baghdad_Battery]. Suppose, as has been theorized, that it actually was a galvanic battery developed somewhere around the third to sixth century AD. How would the world be different today if ancient Persians had not only figured out how to generate electricity, but had set out to put it to practical use?