Intelligent 'What If's - Pivotal Decisions

I love Alternate History and What If discussions - but only if the questions are intelligently put. No offense to anyone, but most of the What If - threads on this forum are anything but! The questions are far too broadly stated, the premises illogical ... I'm sure I'm not the only one bored by the ever-repeating 'What if Germany had won WWII, won WWI...' etc. threads.

Such questions don't go back to primal causes, that is, the question is open, how Germany won in the first place; also, that kind of question is so wide open - if Germany had won WWII the whole world would have changed. If you want to answer that kind of question, just go write a book... as if there weren't enough already!

So, what I'm interested in is identifying pivotal moments in history where decisive events could have realistically gone in another direction and discussing where they might have led.
An example: Harry Turtledove based a whole series of books (starting with 'How Few Remain' IIRC) on one simple premise: a Confederate dispatch rider, who in real life (very stupidly, BTW) got captured with battle plans before a decisive battle, got through unmolested - and so the Confederates won that battle.

Please accept these rules for the thread and let's discuss:

1.) Premises must be realistic - based either on a single random event or a decision, that could just as easily have gone another way

2.) Give a short description of the circumstances of the real life event/decision and how you think it could have gone differently.

I'd like this thread to focus on finding such moments more than pages and pages of discussion over any one event - so feel free to open new questions at any time!

I'll start out with an example that isn't too obscure - may be old hat to many here - but it's a good example of what I mean:

In the Battle for England in WWII the German Luftwaffe started out by bombing radar stations and airfields, which came close to crippling the English air defence. After a British bombing raid on Berlin, however, Hitler made the decision to divert most of the bombing resources to attack English cities, especially London (the famous 'Blitz').
What if... Hitler had instead listened to his General Staff and let the attacks against the British air defence continue unabated?
Could Germany then have won the air battle and gained air superiority? And what then..?

My personal belief is that yes, the air battle would almost certainly have been won that way. With air superiority, the British fleet could have been held at bay and a cross-channel invasion attempted. Would Hitler have done so, with possibly inadequate naval resources? Would the invasion have been successful? What would have resulted...?

And please don't forget to pose new questions.. this is just supposed to get the ball rolling....

Perhaps these threads may be of use to you. This is the current one. We've thrown around a lot of ideas in there, meant primarily as pre-NES discussions. Sometimes we can actually come up with good ones too.

RE: the scenario in the OP. Securing control of the skies over London was definitely possible for the Luftwaffe due to sheer numbers. Despite not originally being trained for an air superiority and strategic bombing campaign far from their bases (their mission was initially defined as close air support and air superiority), they did reasonably well against a huge series of disadvantages. However, the key problem with attempting to use the Luftwaffe as the primary counter to the Royal Navy is that airplanes don't win wars. Following a campaign of the magnitude of that which was fought in OTL, even if they won, the Luftwaffe would be so depleted as to be unable to patrol the Channel and North Sea in sufficient numbers to prevent Royal Navy craft from destroying the landers (ramshackle things that they were), and even assuming that the forces earmarked for Sealion even get to their landing sites in Britain, they will then have to deal with supply issues, because maintaining control over the Channel doesn't just end when German troops hit the beaches, it's a constant struggle to keep the waterways open to allow fresh supplies to be brought in. Never mind, of course, that these Germans didn't have anything like the mulberry harbors to bring in supplies on a large scale, so they'd have to rely on capturing ports, which might not be done for some time. Then of course there is the resistance of the British Army, which had a trained core that had seen the elephant on the Continent in May 1940 and which served to boost the combat capabilities of their civilian volunteer comrades. Said British Army would not simply roll over and die. So, anyway, securing control of the air might be possible, but landing in the UK? Not going to work.

PoD: the wind turns at the 468 naval Battle of Carthago and the Vandal fireships are unable to destroy the Roman navy. Roman troops land in Africa and recapture it for the Western Empire. I'd be interested in hearing what you guys think of the possibilities for a surviving rump Western Roman state past the 470s. Specifically, the effects on Italy of avoiding the Gothic Wars, and what the Eastern Roman Empire will do with its Ostrogoths in the 480s when Theodoric starts to make trouble. Long-term stuff would be cool too.

My favorite Alternate scenario , is what if Alexander lived another 20 years ? If we suppose Rome never rices , then there is still the issue of Nomadic invasions .... I bet the Hellenistic empires that will come after his death , after civil wars between them , will be severely weakened , far before Rome's fall.

An important question to consider here is, how much does Alexander manage to achieve before dying? I mean both in the terms of administrative reforms and whatnot and in the terms of conquering additional territories, as he apparently planned in OTL.

I don't think there is any reason for Rome not to rise, though; it had way too much going for it already, and by the times of Alexander it was already a significant regional power in Central Italy. The only way to thwart it is to raze it - even just conquering it won't be enough, because when the Alexandrine Empire inevitably collapses Rome will either be able to reclaim its independence by itself or will become a good power base for one of the diadochi.

As for the nomads, I don't think they are such a big threat early on; the Parthians are probably still going to conquer Persia, but a Hellenised Mesopotamia (which is one likely result of Alexander's longer life and reign) would already be far from assured. Perhaps the Seleucids (or whoever takes the niche) will be a more viable power in this timeline.

das said:

An important question to consider here is, how much does Alexander manage to achieve before dying? I mean both in the terms of administrative reforms and whatnot and in the terms of conquering additional territories, as he apparently planned in OTL.

Click to expand...

Yeah, what exactly did he have in mind when he told Nearkhos to conquer Arabia? And Qarthadast - the target of the Kilikian fleet under...Polyperkhon and Krateros, I think - probably is unstable enough right now to fall if it's hit hard enough. Agathokles, after all, was able to beat them up significantly in Sicily and Africa, and all he could rely on was the resources of Syrakousai.

das said:

because when the Alexandrine Empire inevitably collapses Rome [...] will become a good power base for one of the diadochi.

Click to expand...

This....is an incredibly cool idea.

das said:

As for the nomads, I don't think they are such a big threat early on; the Parthians are probably still going to conquer Persia, but a Hellenised Mesopotamia (which is one likely result of Alexander's longer life and reign) would already be far from assured. Perhaps the Seleucids (or whoever takes the niche) will be a more viable power in this timeline.

Click to expand...

What about Baktria? They'll probably have a stronger Hellenic population base to recruit from, and may be able to resist the Saka Rauka. Thus their presence in India will likely be weakened conversely. (I agree with the assessment of Parthia, though, especially if they can get another Mithridates.)

I realize it depends a good deal on the reforms Alexandros was planning, but what do you think Anatolia will look like? Demographically, I mean; would the stronger Hellenic presence allow better control by the Seleukids/whatever epigonos gets Syria? I'm not sure I can see Pontos forming. As for Hellas itself, I can see a stronger Makedonian control of at least the central territories, with a series of symmakheia in the Peloponnesos. Makedonia will probably be able to carve out some stuff on the eastern Aigion shore.

Thanks for the links, Dachspmg! I hadn't ever browsed the NES threads before, looks like I've been missing something...

Regarding the Battle of Britain, I've been doing some reading, prompted by my own question, and I think I have to go along with you: Germany could have won the air battle, but couldn't have invaded successfully anyway.
I hadn't thought about the Mulberry Harbor aspect - you're quite right, even a successfull landing wouldn't have been enough, they'd never have been able to resupply.
So, a different decision on bombing priorities would not have had any great historical impact...

Regarding the wind shift and the Vandal fleet: this is exactly the kind of decision point I'm looking for - a small change with big results! I don't know enough about this episode to discuss it, but I'll go do some Wiki'ing... as I said, just the sort of food for thought that interests me!

Now, the Alexander scenario... sorry, but this is just what I mean about vague premises. Where is the decision point that changes history: HOW or WHY does Alexander live instead of dying...?
Actually, I can partially answer my own question here: he died in Babylon after a banquet, probably of alcohol poisoning ... and it's been theorised he drank so immoderately because of the recent death of his friend (and possibly lover) Hephaistion (IIRC). I don't remember how he died.. let's assume he fell off his horse and randomly broke his neck... where he could just as well have only been bruised.
So, a proper question according to my rules would be: what if Hephaistion hadn't broken his neck falling off his horse? Just an example....

Remember, I'm looking for decision points ... on the line of: "For want of a nail, the kingdom was lost...."

this is just what I mean about vague premises. Where is the decision point that changes history: HOW or WHY does Alexander live instead of dying...?
Actually, I can partially answer my own question here: he died in Babylon after a banquet, probably of alcohol poisoning ... and it's been theorised he drank so immoderately because of the recent death of his friend (and possibly lover) Hephaistion (IIRC). I don't remember how he died.. let's assume he fell off his horse and randomly broke his neck... where he could just as well have only been bruised.
So, a proper question according to my rules would be: what if Hephaistion hadn't broken his neck falling off his horse? Just an example....

Click to expand...

Well you partially answer your own question so i won't bother .

Or maybe i will.

Your primal concern is that people propose Alternate history questions without proposing how one may reach that result and what that How may effect it self the subsequent events.

In this case how Alexander does not die is not important due to the possible reasons he had died. Alcohol , Disease or Poison. (And not a battle his army was completely defeated) . In the last case let's say he asked his bodyguard to drink from his cup so he would get suspicious. In the other occasions the how is answered by luck or in case of Alcohol , Alexander deciding to limit it's use. The how , in this case is not very important.

As for What if scenarios that have to do with decisions , well i am sorry for not offering such scenario

What about this scenario ? The Athenians decide to not do the Sicelian campaign due to , the unlikely success rate of it. How would that effect their antagonism with Sparta ?

I believe this might meet the requirements for this thread. During the early days of the American Revolution, George Washington had suffered several defeats while Horatio Gates was considered a hero after Saratoga. Congress came very close to replacing Washington as commander and chief with Gates. What if this had actually happened and Gates was the commander of the whole army when he ran like a scladed dog at the battle of Camden?

Dragonlord said:

Thanks for the links, Dachspmg! I hadn't ever browsed the NES threads before, looks like I've been missing something...

Click to expand...

No problem. We've had a lot of alternate history threads and we're always happy to get new and fresh discussion.

Dragonlord said:

Regarding the Battle of Britain, I've been doing some reading, prompted by my own question, and I think I have to go along with you: Germany could have won the air battle, but couldn't have invaded successfully anyway.
I hadn't thought about the Mulberry Harbor aspect - you're quite right, even a successfull landing wouldn't have been enough, they'd never have been able to resupply.
So, a different decision on bombing priorities would not have had any great historical impact...

Click to expand...

Oh, I'm not saying that at all. In fact, an unsuccessful Nazi landing could have fairly important impacts. It kinda depends a good deal on Hitler's (somewhat unbalanced) psyche, and whether such a defeat would make him want to concentrate more or less on Britain. He might go after the USSR earlier, with the attendant consequences for good or ill (on which I would be somewhat unclear), or he might hold off on that.

Dragonlord said:

Regarding the wind shift and the Vandal fleet: this is exactly the kind of decision point I'm looking for - a small change with big results! I don't know enough about this episode to discuss it, but I'll go do some Wiki'ing... as I said, just the sort of food for thought that interests me!

Click to expand...

Given Wiki's abysmal record on the Later Roman Empire (save perhaps for the excellent article on the Later Roman Army), I don't even think that the Battle of Carthago - sometimes called the Battle of Cape Bon - even has its own article. Look in the article on Basiliscus, that probably has a blurb.

Dragonlord said:

I don't remember how he died.. let's assume he fell off his horse and randomly broke his neck... where he could just as well have only been bruised.
So, a proper question according to my rules would be: what if Hephaistion hadn't broken his neck falling off his horse? Just an example....

Click to expand...

I was under the impression Hephaistion was either poisoned or that he died of typhoid. Still, eliminating that bug might not be particularly diffficult. And the net effect is the same as what scy12 mentioned.

scy12 said:

What about this scenario ? The Athenians decide to not do the Sicelian campaign due to , the unlikely success rate of it. How would that effect their antagonism with Sparta ?

Click to expand...

Well, since they were at that point in the middle of Nikias' 'bad peace', having just come off of Alkibiades' much more promising Argos scheme, the war is likely to recommence anyway. The only question is where. Sparta doesn't really have the capability to prevent the Athenians from attempting to reverse the loss of her colonies in the north, especially with the death of Brasidas; they still can, however, make a lot of trouble for Athens on the ground in central Greece. So much we already know. I think that the Athenians, if they don't go after Sicily, have most of the advantages. And the Spartans really don't have the kind of naval power base to be able to realistically contest the Athenians, because said Athenians would not have lost so much in Sicily. In the short term, Sparta cannot, even with a war, do much of anything to prevent Athenian reconquest of her Empire. Medium- and long-term effects?...without the disastrous Athenian defeats of 413-411, they will be in a much better position vis-a-vis the Persians. But their political one will suck because they'll have most of the Hellenic city states against them. Neither side can really win unless the other does something stupid. Athens could theoretically spark a helot revolt from Pylos but it will be difficult and the Spartans could stop it with enough advance warning. Said helot revolt would seriously weaken Sparta as a major force until such a time as another Kleomenes comes around to reform it.

That was kinda disjointed. Sorry.

As to Gates, if he was put in command he would either rapidly lose said command due to his own failures, or he would just bring down the entire American cause in flames.

I would like to continue my American Rev. scenario. After the disaster at Camden, the revolution collapses. The English, being what they are, try to deal with the conspirators as leniently as possible. There is much sentiment in England that the whole mess was Parliament’s fault in the first place. Gates is hanged as an example. The British assume that nobody on either side likes him very much and there is little chance that he will be considered a martyr. John Hancock is hanged as the lead conspirator. Also the crown has been after him for many years for smuggling. He is looked upon by many Americans as a pampered rich man so there is little worry that he will be a martyr. Thomas Jefferson goes to prison. These are the harshest sentences that are handed down. George Washington receives a short prison sentence. His many years of military service to the crown are not forgotten. He loses most of his wealth, but retains Mt. Vernon. He eventually returns home to be an old and very tired gentleman farmer. John Adams receives a light prison sentence. He is remembered for services to the crown after the Boston Massacre. Sam Adams is pretty much ignored. He is old and few people listen to him anymore. Besides, why give him any publicity. Franklin receives a slap on the wrist. He is too well known and liked on both sides of the Atlantic to risk any serious punishment. Nathanial Greene hides out in the wilderness with a small force, vowing to fight on.

In 1834 slavery is abolished in the British Empire. The southern plantation owners call for a third Continental Congress in Richmond. Most colonies attend, but the New England colonies pull out when they see the direction that this is going. They are not interested in supporting the continuation of slavery.
TO BE CONTINUED

Dachspmg said:

Oh, I'm not saying that at all. In fact, an unsuccessful Nazi landing could have fairly important impacts. It kinda depends a good deal on Hitler's (somewhat unbalanced) psyche, and whether such a defeat would make him want to concentrate more or less on Britain. He might go after the USSR earlier, with the attendant consequences for good or ill (on which I would be somewhat unclear), or he might hold off on that.

Click to expand...

More important than Hitlers feelings would be the rest of germany - suddenly Hitler isn't infalliable any more. I'd bet on more resistence by the military hierarchy, and they might try a few more coups if he goes for Russia.

Disenfrancised said:

More important than Hitlers feelings would be the rest of germany - suddenly Hitler isn't infalliable any more. I'd bet on more resistence by the military hierarchy, and they might try a few more coups if he goes for Russia.

Click to expand...

I don't know about that quite yet - certainly the military failed to launch any sort of possibly effective coup attempt until long after it was obvious to all involved that the Reich was not merely halted, but doomed. It's possible, but I can't see the old-style Junker generals or the remainder of the Establishment attempting to take Hitler out yet before the Russians are rolling over the eastern frontier.

If France had won the War of Spanish Sucession? Just throwing that out.

What if the Lusitania had'nt been sunk? I have a game based around this, (Enigma: Rising Tide) but always thought it was a bit unrealistic.

I suspect that had Lusitania not been sunk then another liner probably would have been sooner or later with similar results. It wasn't until August that the Kaiser put any restrictions on submarine warfare (by which time another liner containing Americans had been sunk) anyway.

Dreadnought said:

If France had won the War of Spanish Sucession? Just throwing that out.

Click to expand...

As per the OP, I think you should give a specific event at which they did better. You mean, winning Blenheim, or something?

(A TL has been written by a person who has posted in this very thread on the possibility of France winning that particular war, although the divergence is probably not one that people would expect.)

Dachspmg said:

As per the OP, I think you should give a specific event at which they did better. You mean, winning Blenheim, or something?

(A TL has been written by a person who has posted in this very thread on the possibility of France winning that particular war, although the divergence is probably not one that people would expect.)

Click to expand...

Yeah, I guess a more specific event was necessary. But what is the TL? do you have a link?

Dreadnought said:

If France had won the War of Spanish Sucession? Just throwing that out.

Click to expand...

Some people think they did. After all, the Bourbons did keep most of the Spanish possessions, at the price of not uniting the two crowns, which they weren't going to anyway. I consider it pretty much a draw, with the French making a good showing in the last five years of the war, especially after Marlborough was recalled.

Loki130 said:

What if the Lusitania had'nt been sunk?

Click to expand...

Oddly enough, the sinking of the Lusitania didn't cause a public uproar until some time later, when the U.S. government needed a case to join the war. I agree with privatehudson: if not the Lusitania, it would be another ship.

I had a discussion a while ago about the Afghanistan mission, where it went wrong and how it could have been handled differently. My counterpoint said that NATO should have simply bombed the Taliban and left. For the longest time the logic of the opinion confounded me, but today I think I realize what he meant: the main reason the Taliban have returned to Afghanistan is because of the Western presence; if we hadn't put troops on the ground the country would have been left alone.

What do you think?

Dreadnought said:

Yeah, I guess a more specific event was necessary. But what is the TL? do you have a link?

Click to expand...

It's in the third Alternate History Thread on the NES subforum; don't have a link off the top of my head.

sydhe said:

Some people think they did. After all, the Bourbons did keep most of the Spanish possessions, at the price of not uniting the two crowns, which they weren't going to anyway. I consider it pretty much a draw, with the French making a good showing in the last five years of the war, especially after Marlborough was recalled.

Click to expand...

This is very true. Also to be considered is that Louis wasn't fundamentally trying to conquer all of Europe or anything. I think that the most France could have gotten out of the War of the Spanish Succession would be to either keep the Spanish Netherlands under Spain or under France. Annexations in Germany weren't on Louis' wish list; the attack in Bavaria was largely to force the Habsburgs out of the war. A better war for Louis to 'win' is the War of the Grand Alliance.