10 Alternate Scenarios That Are Actually Dumb | Alternate History Hub | History Teacher Reacts

[@MrTerry]

Which scenarios are dumb, and which ones are good?

[@BHuang92]

What if WW1 ended as a stalemate?

[@TheRezro]

To be honest early ironclads were extremely powerful. The huge issue was that they were unreliable. Which is why introduction of technology on the deep sea was delayed. But US was fighting on its turf and could deploy ironclads in own coastal areas. British absolutely did know that they would be a pain to deal. At least until technology was properly adopted by blue water navies. But for short time Americans did have advantage in that zone.

[@Nostripe361]

@@TheRezro I mean the battle of the ironclads ended in a draw cause neither could break through the other’s armor

[@RMSTitanicWSL]

Roman industrialization was a possibility--but as has been noted, there was no motivation. The British were ever-mindful of the fact that they were outnumbered, and always made a point of learning new ways to punch above their weight. It was all but guaranteed they would industrialize the first chance they got. The Union ironclads would indeed have been a problem for the Royal Navy--at least in calm seas. The British had little that could penetrate their armor, and the ironclads of both sides proved a real menace to wooden-hulled ships in the few conflicts that happened between them. The Man In The High Castle wasn't realistic in the pace a victorious Axis Powers would have conquered the world, but the Germans were tinkering with the idea of nuclear weapons. They were far, far behind the Manhattan Project, though. An Axis victory was a possibility, though (at least with someone more competent and less conceited than Adolf running the show). It was also a possibility for America to turn fascist, too, and join the Axis--or at least stay neutral.

[@MARCBOIREAU]

I have a good scenario for an alternate hisory: if US send troups in Europe in 1939 to fight Dermany and USSR....

[@Atlantyk.]

The worst Alternative history scenario is if Mr. Terry didn't start a KZbin Chanel

[@memphischeshier2767]

Very true statement.

[@ERRATAS0707]

Yeah he broke bad and started making meth in New Mexico.

[@sethaniel1]

It's such a bad Alternate History scenario, I doubt Cody would ever cover it. Hey, you could make a video about that!

[@halbarad6924]

I think you really underestimate how anti slavery Britain was in the 1860s. It was a massive thing for them.

[@AdvancedGamer-]

He forgets people exist and it’s not just the government I guess Obviously the government wouldn’t care about the slavery thing but the people in britian would 100% like in alternate history hub’s video public outcry

[@rakso3820]

This, stating that they wouldn't care is just wrong

[@prestoncampbell7095]

This. The Royal Navy literally intercepted slave ships in Brazilian waters and turned them back. He missed the mark there.

[@kaihiggins725]

@@prestoncampbell7095never mind that we blockaded an ENTIRE CONTINENT to stop the African slave trade

[@yoannbelleville7763]

The British absolutely did care about slavery. Sure, nations only look after their own interests and all that, but troughout history, almost every governement needed some sort of moral justification in order to start or join a war. Even Hitler and the Japanese made false flag operations to justifie their conquests, which they manadged to get away with in no small part because of the rising international tensions and because Poland/China were close to their borders. The British couldn't even have convince their people that the civil war wasn't about slavery. Plenty of journalists were already sharing the causes and the developement of the war at that point. Even if we were to say that the members of the British governement didn't care about slavery (they did. Despite what one may think, politicians are people too), joinning the war on the side of the confederacy would have been incredibly unpopular. It would no doubt have caused huge riots in the streets, pressuring the governement to end the war more and more. Not to mention the backlash from the parents and wives of the soldiers sent to fight on the other side of the atlantic for a cause they considered to be very unjust. Slavery had been abolished for over three decades and was seen in most of Europe as one of the worst moral evil.

[@Nostripe361]

Didn't one city in Britain get a thank you from America for being against shipping coal to the Confederates?

[@CivilWarMan]

Fully agree. As I mentioned in my own comment about the situation, even if we assumed a scenario where the British public was apathetic about slavery in the United States, the pro-Union factions would not have stayed silent about it, and they had some powerful writers both internally and internationally. The abolition movement in the US transformed public opinion of John Brown in the northern states from a Quixotic lunatic into an exalted martyr in less than 2 years. It's not difficult to imagine a similar blitz of essays quickly turning British public opinion against the crown backing the Confederacy.

[@yoannbelleville7763]

@@Nostripe361 Never heard of that one but it wouldn't surprise me.

[@Nostripe361]

@@yoannbelleville7763 I found it on the wiki page for the UK and american war. Manchester citizens passed a resolution of support and sent a letter to Lincoln he sent a letter in thanks. There is now a statue of him in the city Lincoln seems to have become a hero for the working class of Britain at the time.

[@gigiobb]

British ships even boarded brazilian slave ships and threatened war if the slave trade did not stop

[@Nostripe361]

Another problem with another place like ancient Rome industrializing was that those in power would probably not be excited about what technology would give the lower classes. Such as power or free time that they could use to start discussing why those in power are in power.

[@MrTerry]

I agree. This is why I think it would be highly regulated by the patricians

[@laurencewinch-furness9450]

I don't think Rome could have industrialised, but a few steam-powered technologies could have still made a big difference. Imagine a Persian army facing off against Roman legions equipped with roughly the same weapons as in our timeline. The two armies collide, and the Persians are locked in place, pressed against a wall of shields. All of a sudden, a small squadron of steam-powered chariots smash through the centre of the Persian lines, with cavalry following in their wake - fanning out to wreck the Persian lines. The Persian army quickly disintegrates, and Roman troops are free to advance and conquer the Persian empire.

[@SeruraRenge11]

25:12 But...Britain literally went out of its way spending untold amounts of money trying to end slavery everywhere its empire had contact with, purely for moralistic reasons.

[@cp368productions2]

They also were major players in the slave trade. They caught and sold people.

[@SeruraRenge11]

@@cp368productions2 Actually for the most part it was the Portuguese who held the monopoly on controlling the trade but regardless, that was before.

[@benc.3128]

@@cp368productions2they were, until they weren’t and that’s the time period we’re talking about The American civil war happened some 40 years after the British abolished slavery. It also took place around 50 years after Castlereigh was specifically instructed by the king (as far as I remember) to get everyone at the congress of Vienna to abolish slavery. He, being an imperialist, did a half assed job of that, but it goes to show the intentions of Britain on this issue

[@SeruraRenge11]

@@benc.3128 I mean it says a lot if they halfassed it because apparently they spent so much putting a stop to the trade and compensating everyone for it that they only finished paying it off in 2015. They spent 40% of their national budget on the Slavery Abolition Act in 1833.

[@cdcdrr]

Hmmm, no. There was certainly a strong grassroots movement opposing slavery, and politicians in parliament were starting to take notice, but they were still putting the interests of the most wealthy Britons first. Had those been against abolition, the road to ending slavery would have been much harder. By the 19th century, Britain's colonial empire was far less reliant on slave labour. Australia and Canada were mainly inhabited by free citizens. South Africa wasn't profitable (yet) and only taken as a waystation for resupply. India had a native aristocracy with its own serfs to do all the labour. And the Caribbean islands restricted by size, crop value and population capacity started to wane in profitability. For the people who mattered, abolition was a pragmatic decision free of morals. If the few leftover plantation owners could not profit off of slavery any longer, nobody was allowed to profit from the slave trade or the institution. Appointing itself the world's maritime inspector to hinder other powers from transporting slaves. For all their naked self interest, the other imperial powers at the Congress of Vienna were right to call out Castlereagh's hypocritical effort to receive a commitment to end slavery. The Liverpool government didn't even want to broach the subject of slavery, seeing it as a valuable waste of diplomatic capital for something that wouldn't benefit Britain. And only did it after having its arms twisted by an outpouring of support from ordinary Brits, with a frankly insulting attempt that was designed to fail. Naturally, none of this is to suggest that the outcome wasn't a positive regardless. Better to have Britain do the right thing for the wrong reasons than the other way around. The impetus towards free labour was still given room to grow. But it was the work of the societies and activists who deserve the credit. Not the nation of Britain in itself. Nations are cynical creatures, run by cold, unfeeling pragmatists who rarely act outside the best interests of the people in power. I'd be careful not giving them too much praise for the good they might do, lest people start to believe the self-righteous propaganda that inevitably results.

[@supersasukemaniac]

Another reason why Alexander wouldn't have considered invading Rome is as simple as the age he lived in, Rome was still effectively nothing and Carthage was the massive superpower; and as a result the big prize Alexander ultimately had his sights on. It would be over 100 years later that Rome would beat Carthage in the first Punic War and be seen as even stronger then Carthage

[@somethinguncreative4475]

but what if Alexander lived until he was 130 though?

[@v0rtexbeater]

​@@somethinguncreative4475the entire world would be speaking greek

[@manahakume9870]

i remember a meme where someone was like 'i was looking at my contact list in my phone and i have like 'Mike electrician' and now i under stand how last names came to be' XD

[@GleamingRake]

Even though the Normans were indeed Norse Vikings originally, at the time of the conquest of England they had lived in France for almost 2 centuries, and at this point they really had adopted the Romance cultural substratum of the Franks who'd been part of the Roman empire for centuries. They had adopted Franks customs, laws, language and religion. To be fair Scandinavia also had become pretty much christian at this point, but was much closer to its Norse cultural and linguistic heritage.

[@MrTerry]

Once a Viking, always a Viking! SKOL

[@jeffslote9671]

The Aztecs would have been stopped in thier tracks by the first fortress they encountered. Lacking cannon, siege tactics and a supply chain would have prevented any conquest. Less than ten countries nowadays can conduct war across the globe now let alone a Bronze Age culture from central Mexico

[@CivilWarMan]

Even setting aside that, and even having the Aztecs immediately reverse-engineering the Spanish sailing and navigation technology, a hypothetical Sunset Invasion would also require them to know Spain's latitude, so they don't end up accidentally invading the western coast of Africa. A victorious Aztec Empire eventually driving the Spanish out of the Caribbean and the Gulf would be a pretty interesting idea to explore, since a lot changes if there is no Spanish colonization of Central and South America, but I agree that them actually invading mainland Europe is the province of Guns of the South-level "time travelers give the underdog advanced weapons" sci-fi alternate history.

[@RoxxieRaeVA]

@@CivilWarMan And run smack into Songhai, or Mali, or Ghana...still not a good day for the Aztecs no matter how this plays out.

[@jonathancummings3807]

​@@RoxxieRaeVANo. They would be a problem for Songhai, Mali, and Ghana. It would be a more even fight for them. A large Light Infantry army vs another large Light Infantry army. Those African Empires were smashed by the North African Berber peoples when they learned that there was no..Cavalry, no Gunpowder weapons. Not even old fashioned style heavy Infantry. The problem is logistics and old world diseases not the military prowess. The Aztecs could field armies of up to 200,000 to 300,000 according to Bernal Diaz and Cortez, the two surviving written accounts. They weren't as limited ritually as these guys are making it out to be. They had a concept of both ritualistic and what we consider standard war. That's why Noche Triste happened, the Aztecs actually forced Cortez out of Tenochtitlan and he had to retreat to friendly territory, rebuild a new army, and then waged a well led campaign of conquest, culminating in the siege of Tenochtitlan which succeeded. Throughout, the Aztecs actually fought like normal warfare, they just were outclassed and ran out of food, and old world diseases ravaged them.

[@GrantCelley]

I am working on an alternate timeline of industrializing of Rome. One issue is that I think Rome did not see anything important to industrialize. In my timeline they put the Helios engine on the Agricola's ships when sailing to Greece. One of the first time europeans sailed the Mediterranean without seeing land. This made the engine be looked at to do more work.

[@evanb4307]

Hey Mr. Terry, love your stuff! Just in case you weren't aware, the Sunset Invasion scenario is from an expansion for Crusader Kings 2. Basically, there was an issue with the game at the time that mid- and late-game western Europe was too stable and boring to play, while eastern Europe and the middle east had to deal with the Mongols, so Paradox made Sunset Invasion as a kind of fun way to give something similar to the west half of the map. It was never really meant to be serious alt history, but it's still kind of a fun thing to think about :)

[@sergioandrade8735]

Another reason why Smith is a common family name is because of status. Smiths or metal workers were considered the most respected of the craft workers and if one claimed to be a smith that meant you had a valuable skill.

[@MalikF15]

I love how you brought up how Normans were vickings decent people. It’s in the name

[@MrTerry]

Yep!

[@kaihiggins725]

Yes but it’s like saying the 13 colonies were ruled by Germans

[@AnimeFreak40K]

Couple of comments: WWII Germany was nowhere near completing a nuke. At all. They had some of the concepts and ideas, but their methods of collecting enough material to make a viable weapon was horribly slow and inefficient. I mean, the reason why Operation Gunnerside was so effective was due to those inefficiencies and set their efforts back several years. Even if those events didn't happen (or they failed), Germany would never beat the US to the bomb. The advent of the Ironclads literally changed the face of naval warfare overnight. While neither the Union nor Confederates were the first to have ironclads, but they were the first to pit them against each other and their actions leading up to and after their battle pretty much proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that throwing a wooden navy against one was a good way to lose that navy (or at the very least, see it crippled)...and there would be no way Britian would be willing to sacrifice its navy for the CSA.

[@CivilWarMan]

In general support of these comments: When the Americans dropped the bombs on Japan, apparently the German scientists who had been working on the bomb were shocked and couldn't figure out how the Americans got their hands on so much fissile material, because they *dramatically* overestimated how much was needed in order to produce a viable bomb. As for the Ironclads, they would not have been able to contest the Royal Navy on the open seas, but the Monitor and its descendants were generally built with more of a focus around port defense and shallow water patrol than open sea combat. Britain would reign supreme away from shore, but the Ironclads would have likely prevented a repeat of the coastal raids during the War of 1812. Especially if the Royal Navy tried to do a repeat of their burning of DC, because not only were there the Ironclads, but Washington DC by that point was one of the most heavily fortified cities in the world.

[@AnimeFreak40K]

@@CivilWarMan The reason why Germany overestimated the amount fissile material was because they didn't have a reliable way to get it sufficiently concentrated; this is one of the reasons why centrifuges were a big deal, as getting those concentrations was much easier (and faster). Germany was using a completely different method which would have eventually led to a working bomb, but it would have taken years to get enough material at sufficient purities to do it. Regarding the Ironclads; I agree completely! There would have been zero chance to compete with the Royal Navy in the open seas...but given the state of affairs at the time, that (most likely) would not be a concern due to the mission at the time (read: maintaining the blockade). As you mentioned, they would have been in a coastal defense role...and any ship that tried to test those lines would have paid dearly. Frankly, I highly doubt the Royal Navy would have been willing to pay the price in men and ships it would take to get anything through the blockade.

[@idcgaming518]

12:50 the Normans may have been viking descendents, but they had become French by the time of 1066.

[@kaihiggins725]

It’s like saying the Germans Conquered America

[@aubreyhuff46]

8:44 he was stating that the romans met only these four of the 15 pre-requisites.

[@somethinguncreative4475]

he was bad at communicating it but i think he was trying to say that rome met other requirements not listed like natural resources. and then he immediately got sidetracked

[@aubreyhuff46]

@@somethinguncreative4475 I'm not saying there couldn't be others, but of the 15 Cody mentioned, only 4 were met. And let's be honest, this list of things is probably more subjective than objective

[@somethinguncreative4475]

@@aubreyhuff46 true thats a good point

[@Skel1001]

Ironclads would have made a huge difference considering the u.s would have also been on the defense during the war. The first battle between ironclads at the battle of Hampton road had two ironclads duel for three hours with minimal damage inflicted on both ships in that time. It was one of the few points in history where armor advanced faster then weapons

[@ItsAVolcano]

The Hardrada situation could easily occur if the wind shifted a few weeks earlier for William causing him to fight Harold first then the winner had to deal with the vikings.

[@David-sl6xf]

I've thought about that as well, but I also think that's kind of opening pandora's box of Alt history scenarios because of how many events in history have been affected by weather

[@richardstarkey2247]

Basing a scenario on a point of divergence outside of human control like the weather is never plausible.

[@somethinguncreative4475]

@@David-sl6xf meanwhile Althistory: *what if the moon was habitable?*

[@MWSin1]

I've always thought the most interesting scenario for 1066 is that that Harald dies at Stamford Bridge (as he historically did) and then both Harold and William die at Hastings (Harold really did die, and at one point false rumors of William's death ran through the Bastard's army). Suddenly, you've got teenagers on the thrones of England, Normandy, and Norway. The entire North Sea seems to be up for grabs - and Sweyn of Denmark is the most likely to try to grab it.

[@Ulfhednar90]

I'm sorry, but the fact that US didn't really care about slavery, doesn't mean that Britain didn't. It's easy to cast Americano-centric point of view on others, but it doesn't have much to do with reality

[@bernard3303]

The conquest of England by Harald Hardrada isn't that far from imagination. if saxons fought against Normans, and an arrow hit William in the eye causing his death, then you could see their army retreat and lose the battle and then return to Normandy. After that the saxons would march north to fight the Norwegians and from there you could have a scenario where harald conquers England

[@vinicius_maurer]

Britain cared so much about slavery that they were pressuring Brazil so much about it, that we (Brazil) made a bunch of so called "Leis para inglês ver" (translated: Laws for the English to see), wich were laws that kinda ended slavery but no really, like freeing really old slaves (most wouldn't even get close to the needed age), and other stuff like that. That has such a big impact in brazilian culture that it even became an expression, basically the same as "jeitinho brasileiro"

[@jendreg1935]

25:54 His whole point is that Britain abandoned the Ottomans, which it supported for balance of power reasons because of the moral outcry of the british public over Ottoman atrocities.

[@RyanRichardsToby]

Mr. Terry, what do you think of my hypotisis: Everyone talks about going back in time to kill Hitler. I maintain that the economy and anti-semetism of Germany would result in WWII and the Holocaust eventually happening with or without Hitler. Am I right?

[@alphagamer9505]

No WW2 would still happen,but there wouldnt be any nazis or holocaust

[@KamiNoBaka1]

Sunset invasion is still pretty cool in CK2, though.

[@chriswilliamson9993]

For Chinese invasion of America - they would find some value - they would want precious metals from Mexico just as much as the Spanish did. However China to Mexico is a hell of a distance - much harder than Spain to Mexico.

[@RipOffProductionsLLC]

Yeah, the risk-vs-reward/investment-to-payout for cross Pacific colonization would have been too high, especially given the limited information they woukd gave had. It's only worth it in EU4, and that's because you have future knowledge that it cuts off European expansion in those regions(and wacky game mechanics that crank out crazy money from colonial gold)... And even then, using colonialism to fill out Indonesian islands is probably more important for protecting yourself from European colonialism, especially considering how China's tributary system works in that game, requiring direct land borders and all...

[@timnewman7591]

So, the one I think is actually plausible is Harald Hardrada beating William the Bast'rd and either making himself King of England or putting Tostig on the throne with the hope that he'll be a nice loyal vassal (or can be killed by those nice Norwegian bodyguards he's been left when he isn't). And it's a lot more plausible than he seems to think. The Norman knights weren't some invincible megachads who could just charge and smash a hole through the walls of Baghdad (sorry Anna Komnena), you don't have to go as late as the rise of the Swiss to see solid infantry formations beating charges by nights (including Viking raiders around a decade later killing the Earl of Chester iirc when he caught them raiding his lands along the coast). Guess how William's barons feel if the Norwegian fleet appears off the coast of Normandy while they're adventuring to try to win a throne for him in England.

[@Omega4Productions]

38:04. Biggest problem with that is that the Nazis expelled the majority of their nuclear scientists for being Jewish, so their nuclear program was already kneecapped from the start, even if Hitler was interested in pursuing it.

[@Kings_Quest]

Would the Hardrada scenario work if Hastings happens first? And then the winner of that fights Hardrada?

[@supersasukemaniac]

No, it would also be possible if his ally, Tostig Godwinson (King Harold's Brother) was able to get more allies then just the Orkney Islands. If Tostig was able to get more of the Saxons on his side, Harald Harada would have been able to possibly win at Stanford Bride. And Tostig's Allies would have probably been able to hold off William the Bastard while Harada and Tostig moved south.

[@kaihiggins725]

@@supersasukemaniacthat wouldn’t have happened imo. The Saxons historically hated Vikings. Only 1 Vikings ruler was accepted and that was Cnut as he was a deeply devout Christian. Hardrada wouldn’t have lasted long even if some miracle allowed him to win

[@kaihiggins725]

No it was virtually impossible. The only reason Godwin rushed to Hastings is because of how close it was to London. York isn’t close to London especially when Hardrada would need to fight his way through. The chronicles in England write that Harold Godwin could have gotten an estimated 30,000 if he held off attacking William so Hardrada would have likely faced a much larger force

[@sud1881]

Yeah alternate history really likes considering what happens when things shift now but he also covered more unrealistic scenarios

[@dbilly121]

As for Britain and American slavery, the British public were extremely anti slavery, even about the Americas. Any British government that backed the Confederacy would face mass protests at home.

[@Emmetlovesredvelvet13]

I do hope one day he decides to do one of my most requested ones, which is what would happen if the other side won the war of the roses. I find it fascinating how the bloodline of henry's led to such a long and complicated dynasty with such staying powers only to be snuffed out because of the actions of elizabeth refusing to continue her bloodline. Now imagine a world where instead of king Henry the 4th onward never existed.

[@wargamesmaster]

I honestly think that if it's written well, any alternate historical event could work in a what if video.

[@OuPoot999]

With regards to the Ironclads: The UK didn't have a hard counter to them at the time, so until they developed one the Union would have had a massive advantage, at least for the first few months of the theoretical war.

[@GödekeMichels_72]

You are seriously underestimateing the movement to banish slavery. Would it lead to the UK declaring wars? Certainly not. But it would be a weight in favour of not supporting a slave power. History shows that several times.

[@RipOffProductionsLLC]

I mean, the East Africa Squadron was basicly at war with every merchant vessel that might have had slaves on it, and Britain tried(and sometimes even succeded) to bully and threaten a lot of African Kingdoms into abolishing the slave trade. Sure, they weren't going to go to war with a European power over it, but even there they still tried pushing for it diplomatically.

[@kaihiggins725]

It literally had Britain blockading and entire continent so not too sure lol

[@Firemalleoandjelly]

27:37 If German wanted to quickly kick France out, maybe get some help from Britain.

[@morbvsclz]

I don't know if it exists, but one alternate history scenario that came to my mind, was: What if Varus believed Segestes, when he told him that Arminius was planning to defect and planning a trap for the Romans. Super plausible, but the consequences for world history could be immense. All of Germania eventually becoming a Roman province may have been the result, rather than Rome eventually falling to Germanic Tribes and them instead building the Holy "Roman" Empire. The migration period with Germanic tribes essentially showing up everywhere, including pretty much dominating the foundation of England. All of that may never happen. The English language would not exist in it's form. The British Empire may never have existed, thus not the USA, Canada, Australia etc. Impossible to reasonably guess, but Rome halting at the Rhine and the tribes beyond (Germanic / Nordic and Slavic) essentially remaining culturally independant from Roman domination, changes the entire history of Western Society. And just Varus not falling into a trap he was actually warned about, may have changed all that.

[@kaihiggins725]

Although you are not too interested I thought I’d drop my two cents in since I major in that period of English history. So the big question isn’t if Hardrada had of beaten Godwin but if Godwin had of beaten William. It was virtually impossible for Hardrada to successfully win, with this scenario people often forget Saxon politics. Just because Harold Godwin had died that doesn’t mean the Saxons role over, kings back then were elected by earls so the next biggest earl would have become king still giving Hardrada two kings. A common what if is what if Harold Godwin had of waited. The chronicles wrote that if Godwin had stayed in London he could have added an estimated 30,000 Saxons to his ranks fresh and ready the reason he didn’t was to literally get the high ground at Hastings and the man still nearly won. Hardrada doesn’t have that luxury and thats IF the Saxons didn’t join William. It would be huge if Godwin beat William though as it changes world history as we know it. We likely wouldn’t have Magna Carta as that was formed by French Nobles against William’s dynasty, the British Empire may not have existed at least not the extent it did it would have been more on par with the Netherlands or Portugal instead of being compared to Rome (in terms of world impact) and it could even mean no United States or at least not how we know it as the Constitution wouldn’t have the Magna Carta to go off which was huge in its foundation. Hardrada winning doesn’t work but wow Godwin winning changes the world in ways people don’t realise

[@forthemysterians7630]

I also had ancestors from the Salem Witch Trials. The porters

[@metgath]

You were on the prosecution side of the witch trials? I'm descended from a brother of Rebecca Nurse, the first victim. Pleased to meet you.

[@GamerAccounts-s7s]

That Alexander one made me remember one of the fanfictions during Roman times, where Alexander did invade during Republican times, and they one in that fanfiction.

[@glitchy_boi3780]

I dont recall if you actually take note of video requests in the comments but i just wanted to say i would love to see you react to videos from possible history like his what if everything went perfect for (enter country) and other alternate history videos.

[@rogueemerald]

Hey mr terry, would love to see what you think of the alternate history scenario TNO. (Not the most realistic but still very interesting and in my opinion much cooler than man in the high castle)

[@vichtenchoo5956]

Hello from Alabama, in the land of traitors.

[@hunterofhotdogs4505]

the iron clads were an Absolut game changer in Briton they ended all orders for wooden ships soon after there introduction.

[@dbilly121]

The only issue I have with the Rome one is that he's saying Rome never develops beyond what it had, it was 1400 years after Rome fell we hit the Industrial revolution, if society progressed as it always does, Rome would have easily reached it by 1500 AD at the latest.

[@jankusthegreat9233]

The burning Terry's sound like a band

[@tacobowler]

Any “Italy joins the Central Powers” that’s worth listening to is Austria being desperate at about the time Italy joined historically and gives Italy the land in Dalmatia they wanted in exchange for attacking France. No way Italy joins otherwise.

[@trevorjrooney]

Anyone have a recommendation on a book that talks about these prerequisites for industrialization? I'm suddenly really curious about that, since industrialization basically started the anthropocene.

[@MrTerry]

I’d recommend starting with Guns Germs and Steel by Jared Diamond

[@MichalKolac]

Watching this video with a reproduction austro hunagrian military hat on my head.

[@kvetoslavzeleny1764]

Isn't it funny that P.K. Dick also "wrote" Blade Runner. Like there is patern for patern... Hmmhmm

[@David-sl6xf]

I agree that the British government probably didn't care about slavery themselves, but they would have been forced to because the British public was actually pretty anti-slavery. There is great video series by Historia Civils about the Congress of Vienna that touches on this

[@kaihiggins725]

It’s written in the law of the land that slavery was illegal and has been the case since 1066 they was a massive court case when two American slaves escaped to Britain. A lot of Politicians were against slaves too, not many actually owned any

[@kineuhansen8629]

some day i need to check out my family i belive my mother says i am part austrian and i am swiss as well from my farther side

[@tannerdorsett9288]

My surname comes from the south of England, a county literally called Dorset. I'm basically royalty not really.

[@JohnfromManitoba]

I liked the way you said Austria 31:32

[@CivilWarMan]

I think you are underestimating the level of public opposition that would occur in the UK in the face of the crown entering the Civil War on the side of the Confederacy. At that point the Royal Navy had been spending decades fighting to crack down on the Transatlantic slave trade, so siding with a slave power that was one of the biggest smugglers of kidnapped Africans and was explicit in its desire to reopen the slave trade would have been a non-starter for a lot of the general public. Add to that the rhetorical strength of the abolitionist movement. John Brown was viewed as a lunatic by a large segment of the US after his raid on Harper's Ferry, but within 2 years, thanks in part to the writings of people like Frederick Douglass and Henry David Thoreau, there were songs sung about him lionizing him as a martyr. Even if the British public was initially apathetic about entering the war on the side of the Confederacy, how long can anyone honestly claim that they'd remain apathetic if you have prominent British philosophers and abolitionists like John Stuart Mill writing in opposition to it? Not to mention when other prominent writers in other countries, like Douglass, Thoreau, or Karl Marx, join in on the denunciation.

[@Shifty69569]

React to WarHawk! They just realeased Antietam battle!

[@austinbosovich6130]

When do you do the new fat electrician video?

[@supersasukemaniac]

That take on Rome was kind of bad, especially the Engineering bit. Rome has pretty good Engineers (they where the first to discover and use indoor plumbing after all) but most of the enginering work they did, mostly went to the Seige Engines. Rome's big problem that prevented Industry, in my mind was a two pronged problem one, the Roman society held honor and prestige (Degnitas) over everything else, and the best way to earn Honor and Prestige was to go to war. Two, the next most prestigious thing you could do that wasn't being a member of the Legions or being a Senator was being a Farmer. Outside of their near never ending battles. The Roman population in general was pretty much content with having a simple Farmers life

[@imacds]

The military conquests also resulted in large amounts of slaves. It is very hard to justify spending all the time/energy developing machine capital in a society with plentiful disposable human capital.

[@joshuawells835]

Alternate History films or tv shows are either hit or miss and Man in the High Castle was a hit up until the last few minutes of the series finale.

[@tylerainsworth4542]

Iron clad probably would have made a big difference tbt

[@sagethegreat4680]

What if Terry went back in time and became emperor of the dinosaurs 😂

[@estranhokonsta]

I agree with most of the points in the video. All of those scenarios are pretty irrealistic. At most the invasion of japan might have happened if the manahatan project did not deliver on time. And even then, japan would soon resign very soon after the invasion. I really do not see any practical arguments for all the others alternate history, at least in the form they were presented.

[@romas011]

The inclusion of Downfall in this video was odd to me. Most other scenarios are speculative and require creative liberties akin to magic like the sunset invasion, roman industrialisation, etc. But Downfall, a plan that was pretty much already gearing up, as soldiers were being shipped to the pacific theatre after Germany had already capitulated for the invasion specifically, and stopped in its tracks by the unconditional surrender. Seems revisionism at best and disingenuous at worst.

[@anothervarietyyoutuber4533]

I'm pretty sure you just ignored the historical context about the Japanese fear of the Soviets compared to the US.

[@thomas3236]

Let's say the Soviets overrunning Manchuria isn't enough to break the Japanese, for whatever reason. Then the invasion might have happened, but the Japanese would have never fought a year-long guerilla war. Instead, they would just surrender after a few days of fighting.

[@angelgarza7437]

Yea, I think I was disingenuous that we even believed this for as long as we did, like Japan was practically defeated, in hindsight the dropping of the atomic bombs seems to b a show of strength against the soviets instead of trying to scare Japan into surrendering, even without the bombs or soviets help, I think the US could have a blockade around Japan, bombard them, and they would eventually surrendered

[@romas011]

@@anothervarietyyoutuber4533 The Soviets are irrelevant to my point. The point is that Downfall was an actual plan and that was being put into motion. Putting it next to the the sunset invasion and roman industrialization, which are essentially fictional, is ludicrous.

[@romas011]

@@thomas3236 Japan didn't surrender for over two months after Germany was defeated. Heck, even after the first nuke they still couldn't agree to surrender. It took the combination of the second nuke, which proved that the allies had more than one, and the Soviet invasion to make hirohito directly order his government to surrender. Without these, to think that the Japanese high command would simply fold with allied boots on their soil seems silly.

[@draconianscout]

Huh, didn't expect you not to know about the British very heavy moralistic hate of slavery.

[@josephwatkins1190]

I agree about the Romans industrializing, he is way too attached to the idea that it requires capitalism but they never would have not because of capitalism but because nations that depend on slavery aren't incentived to. It's notable how the industrial revolution doesn't really take off until after the Western world abolishes slavery, at least at home

[@paloim]

That confused me because capitalism actually came about *after* industrialization so I've got no clue what bro was waffling about

[@CivilWarMan]

While Cody did mention the lack of capitalism, his initial statement when discussing which factors Rome lacked was that they lacked any advanced economic theory, which does not automatically mean capitalism.

[@tylerainsworth4542]

Iron clad probably would have made a big difference tbt😊

[@B10eProductions]

I wonder what would have happened if the U.S. never got involved in the World Wars

[@kaihiggins725]

They likely wouldn’t have gotten out of the Great Depression for a long time and wouldn’t be remotely as much of a power as it is now

[@sefhammer6276]

21:27 actually you are both slightly wrong, even though they did often start wars for these reasons they where capable of wagging true wars as well even though most where for tributes. ( I am not saying they had a chance against any old world power though)

[@jonathancummings3807]

Actually, the Romans did industrialize, just not in the way the Europeans did in the 19th century. They did have mass priduction factories and assembly plants they did have huge flour production water mills, using water power. They didnt go all in with Steam Power because they didn't need it, they had water power, human and animal power. They didnt need the intricate machining that the Europeans developed in the 19th Century.

[@たいよりない先生]

I think Cody underestimates how the Japanese would've fought despite being at the end of their rope. The civilians would've been involved and the Allies have their work cut out for them. We'd have more situations like the Himeyuri etc. I'm not sure what Cody thinks is implausible about this. What he says is probably half true at best. Seeing how the Japanese were fighting up until that point, why should anyone think that they'd just stop just because the Soviets were blasting through Manchuria? Having foreign armies invade Japan would essentially be the first time since the Mongolians and they were taken out by typhoons both times. They'd still put up a fight to defend the mainland. I'd like to know what changed his mind to believe this just wouldn't be a thing.

[@oliversherman2414]

None of these were as dump as the Wolfenstein, TNO, or Man In The High Castle timelines

[@delly2088]

imo the best way the confederacy would've won was if they halted their advance up north and gave up some states in exchange for the union to recognise them, even that isn't a realistic scenario

[@RipOffProductionsLLC]

Yeah, the "best case" scenario for the South would have been somehow negotiating a peace where they rejoined the Union in exchange for legal protections of slavery going forward... And that's also very silly. The Slavery vs Abolition question had been simmering since the nation was born(if not longer), now that it had finally boiled over into open violence, it wasn't going to end until one side had unconditionally proven themselves "right" via beating the other to a pulp.

[@GödekeMichels_72]

I think China wouldn't have been able to be a colonial power at the time. Simple reason is sprawl. China was already impossibly large to administer...

[@redwolf980]

Number 10 America Is Now Fallout Everyone Is Ghouls And We Have Ghosts When Die To Exact Revenge By Haunting Everybody Lol.

[@ff05t81t]

36:47 no need to finish that series, it’s worse than GoT season 8

[@tmikesecrist3]

How would they get a nuke to Washington?

[@Bluesonofman]

Serbia was the Aggressor

[@annoyedbipolar7424]

Einstein and Oppenheimer were German and Jewish (even if one didn't claim so). You can be two things at once, contrary to what the Reich used to say

[@sagethegreat4680]

Well the union was losing bad during the first years of the Civil War. The better what if is what if the north just surrendered after a year or two and the us was split into 2

[@stephenknizek2651]

@MrTerry I’m not sure if you read Jean Gimpel’s The Medieval Machine, but the was something of a miniature Industrial Revolution back in the Middle Ages. Maybe Rome could have had an Industrial Revolution more akin to that which occurred in that time than the modern one.

[@JonPITBZN]

"Ming dynasty colonizes America" is a stupid alternative history, but "Ming dynasty arrived in America before Columbus did" is a fun historical conspiracy theory. Really, I like all of the "arrived in America before Columbus did" theories

[@kaihiggins725]

Only two that really significant effects is either Ming or any major Islamic power

[@romoxes]

😊