What If- Skilord Style

[SKILORD2]

1. What if France had been conqued in the 100 years war?
(affects in the American Revolution + WW1)

2. What if Alexander The Great had been stopped by the Persians

3. What if Persia had conqured Greece

[SKILORD]

4. what if that whole Zimmerman telegram thing had worked, Mexico in WW1?

[Vrylakas]

Skilord wrote:

4. what if that whole Zimmerman telegram thing had worked, Mexico in WW1?

Nothing would have happened. Ever since the 1911 Revolution Mexico was pure anarchy, with local governors acting like warlords and rebels all over the place. U.S. President Wilson twice intervened with impunity in Mexico, once to briefly occupy Veracruz and later to (unsuccessfully) capture Poncho Villa, during which the U.S. Army penetrated 675 km (c. 400 miles) into Mexico without any opposition whatever from any Mexican force, and stayed there for months. Mexico was incapable of governing itself at that point much less waging war against the U.S.

That was the idiocy of the Zimmerman Telegram, that 1. the Germans thought a Mexican-American war would stall the Americans for anything longer than a half hour, 2. that when confronted with what surely was a causus belli the German Foreign Ministry admitted they'd sent the telegram. It had actually been sent by a very low-level bureaucrat and they could have claimed he was a loose cannon - but they publicly owned up to the deed, almost guaranteeing the U.S. would enter the war against them.

It has been argued by some that the Germans did this because they were already using the unlimited submarine warfare anyway, and besides they didn't really think much of American military prowess (that much being true). But a counter-argument would be that even given these factors, bringing the Americans into the war meant at the very least bringing a minimum estimated 2 million new young soldiers into the conflict against man-starved Germany. The whole Western Front war effort of 1918, from Operation Michael on, was an attempt by the German Reichswehr to achieve victory before the American units began to make their numbers felt in significant proportions. If the German Army was willing to devote its last efforts of the last year of the war trying to counter the sheer weight of numbers brought to bear by the Americans, why wasn't anybody in the German Foreign Ministry bright enough to foresee this problem, whatever they thought of the fighting abilities of the American soldier? They had the tools in their hands to fairly confidently keep the U.S. out of the war. THAT is a bunch of boneheads.

[SKILORD2]

things would be different, Mexico would have lost pitifully yes but isn't that different, maybe ther'd be a couple more states Mexico would probably be alot smaller.

look at it that way.

[Switch625]

Originally posted by SKILORD2
things would be different, Mexico would have lost pitifully yes but isn't that different, maybe ther'd be a couple more states Mexico would probably be alot smaller.

look at it that way.

Doubtful. In the Mexican War, the US shattered Mexico's ability to resist. In fact, the government of Mexico disintegrated with the US attack on Mexico City. The US had Mexico completely at it's mercy, and could have (if it really wanted to) have annexed much more territory, or even (conceivably) the entire nation. The US simply didn't want any more than it took in the peace settlement (there was a minor border adjustment a few years later). After the Mexican war, Mexico didn't have any land the US wanted. That hadn't (and still hasn't) changed.

Yes, Mexico would've gotten spanked with extreme prejudice. It might also have lengthened the war in Europe by a few weeks, perhaps a month or two. The impact would have been historically insignificant, IMO.

[Switch625]

Originally posted by SKILORD2
1. What if France had been conqued in the 100 years war?
(affects in the American Revolution + WW1)

2. What if Alexander The Great had been stopped by the Persians

3. What if Persia had conqured Greece

1. Britain could not have kept France in line. They might have taken France, but they couldn't have held it.

2. Now THAT would have been a big change. No age of Hellenism? I can't even imagine what Middle Eastern, Indian, and Western civilization would look like today if the Greek influence of those centuries were removed.

3. See no. 2, but multiply it by 1000 or more. I know little about the Persian culture, but I would imagine that you would replace Greek influence on every culture with a Persian influence. Do you have any clue what the world might be like now? I don't.

Just imagine a world without the influence of Plato, Aristotle, Archimedes, Pythagoras, Socrates, Hippocrates, etc. etc. etc.

These guys make up the very foundations of Western, and to some extent Islamic, civilization.

[elfstorm]

Originally posted by SKILORD2
1. What if France had been conqued in the 100 years war?
(affects in the American Revolution + WW1)

2. What if Alexander The Great had been stopped by the Persians

3. What if Persia had conqured Greece

1) If England had conquered France....

I expect the King of England would've moved to France (nicer climate and no parliament) and ruled the two countries.

How long this King would've ruled France-England I don't know, I expect the English nobles would've revolted sooner rather than later.

But there would probably have been no War of the Roses. A stable England backed up by French troops may well have conquered Scotland.

There would probably be no Tutor dynasty and the inter-marriage which saw the Stuarts become Kings of all Britian wouldn't happen.

But the big question is... would the Reformation? No Henry VIII... so England remains catholic?

But I'm just guessing....

[Vrylakas]

Skilord wrote:

things would be different, Mexico would have lost pitifully yes but isn't that different, maybe ther'd be a couple more states Mexico would probably be alot smaller.

look at it that way.

If your point is from Mexico's point of view, I still don't think there would have been a difference. Mexico was already coming apart at the seams, and while the U.S. occasionally intervened in the Mexican chaos it also tried to keep the country together. It didn't want a whole collection of small anarchic states along its southern border, warring with each other and leading the occasional Villa-style raids across the Rio Grande. In short, the U.S. wanted Mexico as a buffer state between the American border and the volatile Central American isthmus.

If war had come - and it would have been very foolish indeed for Mexico to try war, despite its rampant anger with the Americans in 1917 - it would have been Pershing's 1916 expedition on a slightly larger scale. Minimal resistance, some irregular warfare in the south near Chiapas, maybe a brief battle near Mexico City itself, but it would have been over in a matter of months - and most of that would have been because of poor traveling conditions. The U.S. did not want any more Mexican territory than that taken from the mid-19th century war. The end result in fact may have been an imposed government from the Americans that would have proven more effective, at least initially.

The bottom line is that Mexico, as it existed in 1914-1918, could only have a negligible impact on the outcome, achieving nothing more than one of those little footnotes that only historians read.

[God]

What if the Persians conquered Greece?


That would be the end for the Greeks. Lets say the Persians were content with their empire for now and weren't expanding further into Europe.
Rome would arise, and find in self in a world, not with collapsing Greek states but a very powerful Persian empire. Either the Persians won't care for the Romans or they would eliminate them. Rome would expand over Italy and then northwards into germany and into Spain. The Chartigans would declare war and we would have the Punic Wars. Lets say the Romans win and they retain their empire. But by now Persia see's Rome as a threat and they declare war. Rome which is already busy trying to fight the barbarians in the north would fall eventually after giving a good struggle.

However it would be possible that the Persians would collapse beacuse rebelling people they controlled and a series of bad leaders and corruption.

if the Romans get destroyed, Christinatity won't rise in Holy land because the Persians are ruling and making sure nothign like that happens.
Persia would remain as the only major power in the world other than China and India. Eventually it would collapse either because of corruption and bad leaders or because some invaders from the Steppes would destroy it.
From there, things could go pretty wild.

oh well, who knows.

[SKILORD]

what if the US had joined the Centrals In WWI

What if Bismark had stayed in power untuil WWI,

What if the king had won in the English Civil War

WHat if Russia's 1905 revolt had succeded

for the last 1 i see russia being freeer and the Commie revolt never happening. Maybe a large socialist party in Russia but not a communist regime. America would have stayed isolationist and would never really be the World Power it is today. It would still be powerful but it'd have as little to do with the rest of the world as possible.

What if the Nazies had won the battle of Britain (the air war)

[Magnus]

The USA would have never allied with the CP's, by the time 1917 came about 99% of the US trade was with the Allies and then, as now, businessmen run US policy.

Bismarck died in 1898 or 1899, IIRC, so the point is moot.

The odd thing about WW1 is that somehow Europe managed to remain essentially at peace (among 'so-called' great powers) for 43 years. I think that was unprecedented. Although NOW, it has been 57 years without a major war in Europe! hooray!

[Hamlet]

Originally posted by SKILORD
WHat if Russia's 1905 revolt had succeded

Errrr, define 'succeeded', please.

Technically, the 1905 revoltion did succeed - The Tsar promised sweaping reforms such as a move towards parliamentary democracy, rights in law for Russian subjects, etc.

However, he then went back on his word, of course, and passed the fundemental laws, which hugely limited all of that, and made the situation not much better than it was pre-revolution.

Originally posted by SKILORD
What if the king had won in the English Civil War

Then I presume Britain would have tottered along in relative absolutism, without the gradual reduction in royal power over time that happened in our timeline, before being swept up in some sort of French-style revolution in the early 19th/late 18th century.

Shamefully, I'm not too hot on this section of (my own) history, so please feel free to correct me if anyone thinks differently.

[SKILORD2]

by succed i mean that the Czar had made said reforms, thereby placating his people making the Russian political system, eventually, virtually identical to the british one.

next ones

1. What If the holy roman Empire had gotten their act together and had gotten a centralized government

2. What if the plan to unite northern and southern italy (post-medeival) had succeded, the pope not having iterveined

3. What if the French Revolution hadn't succeded

[Hamlet]

Originally posted by SKILORD2
by succed i mean that the Czar had made said reforms, thereby placating his people making the Russian political system, eventually, virtually identical to the british one.

Then I cannot really see anything changing, to be honest.

You have to remember that the two revolutions of 1917 did not come about because of some sort of high minded desire on the part of The Russian people for a huge turnabout in Russias political system - They came about simply because the war was destroying the country. Basics such as food, etc were becoming less and less avalible, The Germans were ploughing through the country, and the people were becoming more desperate.

Russia would have still have had it's collective backside kicked in WW1, and the revolutions would have still most probaly have claimed Tsarism, and communism would have still most probably came about. (If we are presuming the PG is still hopelessly politically naive as it is in OTL.)

As I said, you probably need both a large social, political and economic revolution to take place in Russia in the 19th century if you wish to see Some sort of constitutional monarchy retained in Russia throughout the 20th century.

A hopelessly outdated political system was only one reason for the Fall of Tsarism. A hopelessly outmatched country economically was the other main one.

All of this conjecture, of course, does not go to address the fact that Nicholas was a dogged opponent of even the most basic reforms to the system, and for him to actually enact something close to a parliamentary democracy would have been a total turnaround.

Originally posted by SKILORD2
3. What if the French Revolution hadn't succeded

In what sense? The revolution hadn't gone all the way to removing Louis? It hadn't even gotten off the ground in the first place?

Be more specific in future please.

[SKILORD]

if it had failed to get rid of louis

next time i'm not specific take the question wherever you want it to go.

[Vrylakas]

SKILORD2 wrote:

1. What If the holy roman Empire had gotten their act together and had gotten a centralized government.

Well, world history would be very different indeed. A critical factor in European (or better said, Christendom's) history is the decentralization, the lack of a single effective political authority. The Holy Roman Empire, despite its name, was really a confederation pretending to be an empire. (That contradiction doomed the Empire to incessant internal warfare, unusual even by feudal standards.) Would the Protestant Reformation have succeeded, or even happened at all had a real central power developed in the HRE? Would the merchant impetus to explore alternate routes to the Far East have driven Portuguese and Spanish ships to discover a New World have happened? That "event" tipped the scales of economic (and thus military and political) power in Europe from Central Europe to the western, Atlantic states. That kicked off the Age of Exploration and transformed the world, both in positive and negative ways. What language would we be communicating in now? What elevl of technology would the world be living with now? Probably drastically lower. The Holy Roman Empire's death in 1806 was pathetic but its lasting legacy in Western History was that it organized Central Europe enough that it could provide a certain level of stability for the region in chaotic times but that it never achieved levels of dominance that would have stifled development throughout Europe. If it had, I suspect Europe today would be just another backwater region.