What if the American Revolution NEVER Happened

[@Gabowsk]

Imagine all of the feet, ounces and inches lost in this alternate timeline.

[@KFP_Prophet]

There'd actually be a decent chance of the imperial system remaining in both the US and UK still. America probably wouldn't have the chance to fuck up the millions tho so thats a huge plus

[@antoniocampen]

would the metric system even be widely adopted without napoleon?

[@highgrounder5238]

Nghghnnn FEET

[@solgerWhyIsThereAnAtItLooksBad]

The british made them

[@redsable6119]

Glorious ain't it!

[@lesbaguette4381]

I'd also say that a third option in this scenario is that the French are just... more bankrupt in this timeline. Some domestic instability/colonial conflict saw them recently spend a bunch of money, and they have none left to spend in the Americas.

[@ziggytheassassin5835]

Ya, that seems like the most obvious way to stop the revolution. The french dont really care enough to help, and the british shut it down before it gains any legitimacy.

[@mildlymaliciousbanana2700]

W

[@thepreacher7399]

Napoleon would still find a way to hand out L's up until Waterloo again

[@yoylecake313]

@@thepreacher7399 true

[@Eevcee]

Without Napoleon and the precedent of the American Revolution, I think it’s more likely that Mexico would be an autonomous region of Spain, thus it never experiences the economic destruction and the wealth exodus that it experienced in its own independence war. It wouldn’t be as unstable as in our timeline. This was actually a plan that was proposed by New Spain during the Napoleonic crisis but it was rejected by Spain.

[@irmaosmatos4026]

Indeed, Basically all of Latin America would get independence later. Brazil would have to fight a war, the monarchy wouldn't exist, Mexico would be more centered towards Spain, Gran Colombia may not even happen, and Peru and Argentina would have a very different independence.

[@gareginnzhdehhimself]

Also, one of the main reasons the Spanish colonies revolted was that Napoleon's invasion of Spain left the colonists there unprotected, and so they overthrew the Spanish in hopes of becoming independent states capable of protecting their own territory. With no Napoleon in this timeline, Spain probably avoids conquest and the colonies have no chance to rebel, at least not yet

[@alexandersdlg6447]

​@@gareginnzhdehhimselfpara empezar la nueva España nunca fue una colonia, era un territorio español tan válido como Madrid y Barcelona, después de todo fueron gobernados por un virrey que era representante de la voluntad del rey español en las Américas, la razón de sus independencias no fue por un odio a España, si no que fue dada por una revuelta burguesa apoyada por los británicos y los estadounidenses , no por nada las guerras de independencia duraron 10 años, dichas guerras de asemejan más a una guerrera civil entre separatistas y realistas que no eran Mejicanos, si no que eran españoles y eso incluye a los indígenas, negros, mulatos, criollos,etc.

[@concept5631]

Interesting

[@Elix111]

​@@irmaosmatos4026Brazil FOUGHT a war irl, in this timeline, it would've just been worse, and Brazil in the future, also worse, probably split and destroyed economically

[@funnyname8004]

So basically, the UK could pull out a "Say hello to my little friend" at any point in history

[@boejohnson90]

Very boring ww1

[@revengian6526]

They pretty much already do that with us

[@Demostravius]

@@revengian6526 The last time the UK was attacked was the Falklands invasion, and the US didn't exactly offer a mountain of help.

[@Monkeytheforth]

​@@DemostraviusThe Falklands War between the United Kingdom and Argentina did not result in NATO involvement because Article 6 of the North Atlantic Treaty specifies that collective self-defense is applicable only to attacks on member state territories north of the Tropic of Cancer.

[@Console_MobileGamer]

😂😂😂

[@fruitshuit]

For anyone interested in an exploration of the other scenario, where Britain wins the revolutionary war, I would highly, highly recommend the book For Want of a Nail by Robert Sobel. Unlike most Alternate History books, it is written not as a novel but as an Economic History textbook from that timeline, complete with stuff like tables of GDP per capita, citations to other textbooks from that timeline, and even a scathing foreward by another professor rebutting the "bias" of the main text. The broad overview of the scenario is that after winning the war, the British set up the Confederation of North America as a super-canada, while the die-hard revolutionaries flee to Texas. When they eventually rebel against New Spain, it's in the context of many other revolts, and so instead of independence the Jeffersonians (as they call themselves) instead establish the United States of Mexico. the CSA and USM ultimately go on to have a long-standing rivalry with frequent wars until the advent of the Atomic Age freezes great power conflict. It's my favourite AH book, and I think anyone who likes Alternate History for the scenarios more than the characters would love it.

[@supoagentti9547]

I will definetly look it up sounds really interesting, if not a little dense for a simpleton like me.

[@Airland-xx3pr]

Good comment, very good arguments and that but my humour is so broken when you said is my AH favourite book.

[@JLAvey]

That's the style I've used, though I call it fictional history (as opposed to historical fiction).

[@buddermonger2000]

that sounds right up my alley

[@kronsbanntin2201]

video idea: what if the mongols conquered europe

[@X_QuestionMark]

yea do it

[@PulkUlanow]

I mean maybe expanding more into Europe, but yeah, that'd be nice

[@frederickrhodes2551]

Yep

[@muhammadhabibieamiro3639]

Yes

[@roviewer1376]

That would be such a short video since they had a majority of Eastern Europe

[@solgerWhyIsThereAnAtItLooksBad]

I love that this scenario just casually has Alaska as part of British America. Way too many people act like Russia would have been able to own Alaska if America hadn’t bought it instead of Britain taking/always owning it.

[@tremedar]

A huge reason Russia sold it, aside from needing money, was to prevent Britain from simply taking it in a war. Without losing the NA colonies and keeping them loyal by not impeding their expansion, the very first war where the UK had Russia as an opponent and Alaska would be incorporated into British NA.

[@eh2587]

They could've just sold it to someone else.

[@jackslavich9037]

@eh2587 who would want to buy it

[@3xc4llibur47]

​@@jackslavich9037me

[@ALuimes]

@@jackslavich9037 Japan?

[@quuirrel19_-sz9pj]

i, for one, would love to see this scenario continue

[@FdotsgtCIIR]

seconded

[@superbest8930]

Would love to explore how keeping the North American colonies would affect British political will to colonize India. I would imagine the British also wouldn’t want to officially incorporate the southern North American colonies so they could still distance themselves from slavery while still profiting off of it. Also would be super interested in how this affects Japan since America was the one to force them to re-open.

[@concept5631]

​@@superbest8930 Good point on the last paragraph. Russia or other European powers would probably force them to open up later.

[@space__idklmao]

1:45 West Virginia should not be independent but should be part of Virginia. Great video!

[@Nbody_has-this_handle-maybe_no]

I bet you want Delaware to be part of Maryland, which is part of Virginia

[@BlackBanditXX]

I too want to know why he did this.

[@hirocheeto7795]

@@Nbody_has-this_handle-maybe_no No, West Virginia just didn't exist then.

[@Mr_Tophatt]

@@hirocheeto7795 ye it broke away in civil war, which would have never happened in this timeline so I'd why ppl want it anyway, west virginia is also just a bad state in general and shouldn't exist no matter what

[@adamlakeman7240]

West Virginia was culturally (and ethnically) separate from Virginia proper on account of the mountains in between. It's not totally unreasonable that they'd split.

[@JustAnotherGuy-vx4po]

What if everything went perfect for Poland-Lithuania?

[@GustavSvard]

You mean the Commonwealth of Poland-Lithuania-Ruthenia-Sweden? :)

[@TheMormonGuy-ph]

​​@@GustavSvardLithuania and Poland jointly owned ruthenian lands and yeah they were at union with Sweden for a short period

[@thunder_bug_1451]

It would be really interesting to see a world where Corsica is more aligned with italy, and Napoleon sets off italian unification early

[@Boretheory]

U mean that the Sardinians or Tuscans keep Corsica and the Bonaparte s somehow either coup Tuscany or Sardinia and unify the peninsula? Because tbh the Corsicans have never been really important. The Corsicans greatest achievement was resisting France and Genoa for a while.

[@pierren___]

Bonaparte would have been a no-name, french revolution still happens, italian unification would have happened in 1860s too so nothing change

[@johnfisk811]

Napoleon’s father was an ardent and active Corsican nationalist so maybe Napoleon would turn to that task?

[@pierren___]

@@johnfisk811 why did he went to France then ?

[@johnfisk811]

Because he wanted to join the French artillery. His dad was not pleased and, it is said, that he advised young Napoleon to join the British Royal Navy. Now there is a whole new alternate career. Captain Bonaparte with his ship under the command of Admiral Nelson… A generation too early but Washington wanted to join the British army but could only get a Provincial commission from his Governor. Add in then the possibility of Bonaparte’s ship, under the orders of Admiral Nelson transporting Colonel Washington’s regiment to a foreign campaign.@@pierren___

[@Liquid278]

definitely need a "what if everything went perfect for England" at some point

[@dolbez9739]

It'd be insane. Basically what if the nation who already won the game of life had even **more** luck and skill.

[@Epic_the_french_guy]

Please, not my worst nightmare ToT

[@raihan8892]

France's worst nightmare

[@Epic_the_french_guy]

@@raihan8892 Literally what I replied ( Im french )

[@LauraCastroMaulen]

That's our timeline until 1945.

[@HoHoster]

I’m Kinda Tweaking rn at the fact he has West Virginia in parts of the video

[@mediocreexistence9593]

thank god i thought i was the only one who noticed it

[@DaedricGod]

what about the modern day Missouri River reservoir in South Dakota that was created by damming the river.

[@FrankieWilliams-kx9gp]

Country Roads Take Me Home is so powerful it forced West Virginia into existence even in this alternate timeline.

[@santiagobanosflores7069]

Yes please, do make a scenario on British America and Napoleon together

[@limeliciousmapping4652]

Your classic alternate history scenarios are always the best

[@evanneal4936]

No offense, but he doesn't exactly add full realistic effects to his scenarios because he typically changes a lot about what actually happened in real life to set up an alternative scenario in the first place. He also has to add or change events in a timeline to purposely force a certain event rather than an organic buildup to what happens. His scenarios are not like hoi 4 or eu4 where you're put in a real timeline and edit it going forward to create an alternative reality, he changes the entire timelines past, present and future to get to a certain scenario the way he wants it to be regardless of actual demographics or possible outcomes.(for example he forces a usa victory when one was impossible because of Britain being way too strong just to ensure a certain scenario exists) I hope this makes sense... he's pretty good, but I've seen better. "Alternate history hub" is a good example of someone better. Basically, I'm saying this guys scenarios are rigged and set up a certain way on purpose, so he has something to talk about while others start with the real timeline and go from there.

[@evanneal4936]

I'm less interested in arbitrary alternative history, but rather, I'm interested in how different demographics or slight changes lead to different events... don't just tell me, "What if Britain won the war?" And talk about that... but tell me exactly HOW they won in this alternative history and WHY and THEN what events happened next in a reasonably realistic way. This guy tends, in my opinion, to drift away from realism for the sake of his scenarios being more plausible to happen rather than try to create a realistic alternative history from events that actually happened, which is what I prefer to watch. That's why I believe there are better channels out there, just my personal opinion and I'm not saying this guy is not good it's just that you have to admit he can do better because others are. I know it's a personal opinion, and it's all entertainment, but you can't say he's the most realistic alternative history channel when you apparently haven't seen any other ones. He's good but has a long way to go to catch up to "emperor tigerstar" or "alternative history hub" both of whom don't have to drastically change so much unrelated events to force a scenario to occur. They usually start at a certain point and adapt from there without having to go back in time and change something first.

[@limeliciousmapping4652]

Interesting comment first of all. I think you are right in the aspect of detail, like yeah he assumes well this war is going that way on a quite theoretical basis. But in comparison to some other videos I've seen, I don't remember from whom, but I remember a lot of videos where the outcome of a minor event is far more exaggerated than in Possible Histories videos. For example one could have assumed: 'Well if britain and the US are combined it will lead to absolute british domination with britain conquering all of the world or something.' And in comparison to these scenarios PH's relative nuance is quite refreshing. The only video by alternateHistoryHub I remember was a one where the romans didn't invade Britain, and then he was just like 'Well maybe it would still be fully celtic today', but it was a very short video of his, still I didn't really enjoy it because it was too vague. So I guess PH keeps a good balance of realism and an interesting scenario, for me atleast. But I actually do disagree with you a little: History, especially in earlier times where decisions of single people changed the world, has been quite 'random' I suppose, for example if Friedrich Wilhelm of Germany would have smoked less, he wouldn't have died so early, and as his political ideas were so drastically different from his son, it is very likely that WW1 wouldn't have happened in the way we know it atleast. My point is: History sometimes does take very unexpected routes, so I wouldn't write off a scenario as far beyond reality per se, if you know what I mean. Not trying to be rude, I actually appreate talking about this a little@@evanneal4936

[@mohamed_alaa-]

@@evanneal4936 thats why he said " a good grain of realism" , this is not a realstic scenario, it has some realism but not really

[@doc_holliday9484]

2:18 all I’d add is that George III was already super empathetic to the colonists cause and if he had his way there would’ve been a compromise of some kind prior to the battles of Lexington and concord. It always struck me as stupid the way parliament handled the whole affair.

[@solgerWhyIsThereAnAtItLooksBad]

Calling George super empathetic is a stretch. He wanted them to be fully under British control and refused to respond to an American request for a peaceful compromise

[@Joshua429]

18:11 oof

[@RyanMorgan-i9r]

'Supercharged Canada' gotta be the scariest thing I've heard all day

[@SecureHandle]

Why

[@T0ac47]

Video idea: What if Japan actually liberated and treated the people of Asia equally instead of committing war crimes for sport during WW2.

[@thiago292]

Basically becomes the United States of Asia lol

[@lungitylunglung]

@@thiago292yeah but it would be kinda epic

[@GameyRaccoon]

What if Hitler wasn't evil?

[@Burningpaladin]

@@GameyRaccoon What if the ground was the sky?

[@datboi9994]

Nothing changes except China now hates them less. They still lose WW2.

[@nachokoenig6279]

I think it very likely that the French make substantial efforts of colonising Australia, since in our timeline they did make a large number of expeditions into the territory and the Brittish are focused on the American colonies, thus siphoning resources and people while the French with their wounded pride (exacerbated by the brittish holding North America)and stronger economy would be focused on building a new colonial enpire of which Australia could be their second attempt at a New France

[@dallascopp4798]

I can already hear French in an Australian accent in my head

[@pierren___]

Do you have sources for that ?

[@pierren___]

Irl it was Algeria. In fact the french are not a colonial ethnicity, Europe is a continental people

[@Steadyaim101]

nah. France wasn't interested in mass colonization because they joined the Industrialization Party late. Without industrialization, they didn't have the population boom and unemployment rate that GB did, and they needed their people on the farms working their still mostly agrarian economy (plus have a surplus of manpower for their constant land wars). They were looking to set up trade posts for high-demand goods (e.g., furs & spices) that would buy goods produced by locals. Australia had none of that really, and it's such a long distance back to Europe the supply chain would be stupidly expensive for anything the traders brought back to Europe. Honestly, except as a dumping ground for undesirables, Australia had nothing of value to offer the European powers until the Suez opened and the demand for cheap coal and agriculture took off. That's why here in Canada and the USA, the French set only set up maybe a dozen permanent settlements, mostly at the heads of large rivers (e.g., Montreal, Quebec, Trois-Pistoles + New Orleans/Baton-Rouge, Detroit & Louisville).

[@pierren___]

@@Steadyaim101 nonsense. France lost its demographic domination during the napoleonic wars. During the 1800 France owned a qearter of the world economy. France had a premature birth explosion and decay in the 17-18 century.

[@superbest8930]

Loved the chart! France’s spending on the American revolution often gets mentioned when discussing the French Revolution but it is never quantified, let alone shown in an easy to understand chart! That sir, earned you a subscriber right here.

[@OrangeSheepPlayz]

Yay another great video!

[@concept5631]

British North America + Napoleon scenario sounds pretty rad. Please continue.

[@moredac2881]

As an American, it is so interesting to see this video from a non-American.

[@idie6606]

Possible history never fails to fill my tummy for 9 months

[@riazortho]

He did that to me aswell 😊

[@concept5631]

Lmao

[@EoinKavanagh]

That part 2 to this video would be awesome to watch you should 100% do it!!

[@pieceofschmidtgamer]

3:53 A couple of issues with that map: 1) West Virginia was not a thing at the time. 2) Vermont was disputed territory between New Hampshire and New York (and Vermonter militias) at the time, so depicting it as owned by New Hampshire would be... inaccurate to say the least.

[@solgerWhyIsThereAnAtItLooksBad]

It’s probably just that Britain awarded Vermont to New Hampsire because New York didn’t need the land as much Vermont wouldnt exist in this scenario

[@mackt.knight6688]

The West Virginia thing struck me immediately, especially because of the weird shortened borders it has.

[@kenashimame]

West Virginia isn’t in any of the maps, that’s Ohio with weirder borders, unless your thinking of one of the reservations, which is a weird amalgamation of southern Ohio with eastern Kentucky and Tennessee.

[@pieceofschmidtgamer]

@@kenashimame It very clearly is (albeit cut short of most of its territory by the Proclamation Line of 1763). That land was very firmly a part of Virginia at the time.

[@JustAnotherGuy-vx4po]

Scenario Idea: What if Jamukha unified the Mongol tribes instead of Temujin?

[@motivationallizard6644]

This is pretty much just “what if the mongol invasions never happened” because Jamukha was a traditionalist that favored steppe hierarchies especially in the military. That’s part of the reason he eventually lost to Temujin and he wouldn’t change that if he won. Therefore the mongos would be limited to the steppe in the same cycle or raiding and trading as they always had but never conquering the world under Genghis or his descendants. That means a few things: 1. Firstly, the Black Death never happens in Europe, at least not to the same severity or degree. The black earth traveled along the trade routes of the mongol empire and was spread to Europe by the Mongols quite literally catapulting infested corpses over the walls of a Genoese port city in Crimea, which then spread it to Italy when ships fled the siege. Therefore feudalism is never weakened by having significant labor shortages created by the plague and we can expect a longer perpetuation of the feudal system and the enlightenment and renaissance to occur later on if never at all. 2. The Middle East is never completely destabilized by the mongols leading to a stronger Persia and Mameluke empires and no ottomans to take advantage of the power vacuum. The Abbasids are probably to far gone to have a resurgence but I could imagine the Persians absorbing them as reluctant vassals at absolute worst as killing the caliph as the mongols did would be unthinkable. Anatolia could see a much stronger Byzantine resurgence and they could actually end up controlling most of western Anatolia and Greece barring some trolling from the Bulgarians, Catholics, Turks, or the Byzantine’s themselves, although their chances are just better here without the ottomans. However, most importantly there’s probably no Delhi Sultanate and thus no Mughal empire as the Persian royals never flee into India. That means India stays under a mostly Balkanized cycle of the occasional strong Mameluke or afghan sultanate rising up but constantly collapsing under their own weight after s generation or two. At best a single empire is able to rise but it probably Doesn’t last longer than a hundred years. 3. Thirdly, Russia in this timeline never becomes hyper autocratic. Part of the reason Russia became autocratic was that the mongol invasions were so brutal that the rulers of Muscovy centralized power with the nobles to throw off their yoke. That means that Russia in this timeline doesn’t develop around Moscow and instead develops around Novgorod or the less likely Kyiv under a more democratic regime. The original Rus had a pretty cool Juris Prudence based on a mix of Nordic and Slavic laws that were the opposite of the later Russian absolutism. Therefore we could imagine an earlier formation of Russia that probably acts as a check on Swedish, polish, and Turkic power, possibly even strong enough to aid the byzantines. This also means that Moscow never becomes the “third Rome” as it’s unlikely for the Byzantine resurgence to be stopped by the ottomans. 4. Lastly, east Asia never faces the destruction that the mongols brought, probably leading to china continuing in its north-south divide eventually becoming two entirely separate ethnic groups and states as the Yuan dynasty never holds them together by force. Korea and Japan probably stay under Jin influence if they don’t collapse to the Jamukha, the Xia, or the Song, while the song maintain influence over south east Asia. That leads to a disunified china that looks nothing like it does in our timeline and more like Europe as a collection of states with vaguely similar cultures and languages.

[@isaacskinner5565]

@@motivationallizard6644I want this scenario now, I need my autistic maps to change colours while a Dutchman talks

[@concept5631]

​@@motivationallizard6644 You thought this out. Well done.

[@danielsantiagourtado3430]

YES! One of my favorite scenarios! Thanks! Huge fan! 🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧

[@idcgaming518]

0:36 JUST the French? Why does wveryone forget the Spanish assistance in the American revolutionary war? Basically half the world joined in on the side of the Americans, and they always act like they were alone, or maybe had 1 ally. It is annoying as hell. Im British, and even I think the nations that helped the US gain independence deserve more recognition for the part they played.

[@lecake9217]

I'm from Perú and I was thinking the same, the Spanish Empire never get mentioned and that sucks

[@The_Soviet_Onion]

True, not sure why everyone oversimplifies it to just the french

[@RoyalRegimentofScotland]

Funnily enough Spain literally doomed their empire by supporting the Americans 😂

[@TheConfius]

Banger vid, keep up the good work

[@fabiomorandi3585]

A city in British North America becoming the United Kingdom's new capital isn't such a farfetched idea, but the dominion's population must surpass England's first for that to be a realistic expectation. Any city in the same place as Chicago would be a pretty serious contender.

[@zacky1010]

Chicago? That's way too inland for a maritime empire, it would have to be on the Eastern Seaboard

[@drksideofthewal]

@@zacky1010 Chicago still has ocean access while being incredibly defensible, it’s like Tokyo Bay on steroids.

[@greg_4201]

Yes, it's an extremely farfetched and ridiculous idea. It would never happen. You don't seem to understand culture; the colonies would still continue to drift apart culturally from England and the people of the British Isles could never imagine themselves scondary to an administration or cultural centre outside the UK... it makes no sense 🤷🏻‍♂️ It's real life, not a computer game. At any rate Britain, by far being the dominant party until the 1920s when it visibly began to shift, would have no reason to ever lose out politically to a colonial backwater that was up to that point militarily inferior. And even today the US can't easily conquer Britain without extreme loss unlike anything it has ever experienced before and likely could not stomach or justify. So this shift of hegemony to the US just doesn't touch the ground - it's crazy. If the US were to actually surpass the UK's power as in real history, the two would just drift apart and seperate 🤷🏻‍♂️ I can't even say break away, because no administration of Britons would ever have been shifted to the US to begin with. Also today there are only 2 cities in the US where more money flows than London, so I dunno wtf you're talking about ''Chicago'' 😂 You're hypothesising but you don't seem to have an adult concept of our normal reality to begin with...

[@datboi9994]

@@greg_4201 Quit yapping.

[@greg_4201]

@@datboi9994 someone craps out a fevered dream of a toddler that has no foundation in anything remotely possible; pass someone repsonds matter of factly with basic undeniable truths; ''quit yapping'' ........tell me you're a teenager without telling me you're a teenager

[@danever159]

yes of couse id like that kind of video. this is a good idea iv wanted for a while and a longer version of it would be great.

[@mramogus1032]

This video was so well made has super good quality.

[@jabradococonutfrosting9513]

Pretty good video! Maybe in the future you can make what if ww1 happened in the present day?

[@stevenvallarsa1765]

That was a very well thought out set of possible histories had Britain made the proper steps to avoid the American Revolution. What was missing from this narrative was the absolute hatred of the French Catholics in what is now Québec that the original American colonies had. One major spark for the Revolution was how kindly the British treated the conquered French, letting them keep their language and religion. This was mostly due to the British thinking that the St. Laurence part of those conquered territories quickly being returned to France, but France didn't want a "couple of miles of ice and snow". I also can't imaging Indian territories lasting long under American population pressures either. Though the Michigan Territories were promised as an Indian nation by the British during the War of 1812, tired of the Napoleonic Wars and the American invasion of Canada, they just went back to the old borders instead, abandoning their American allies.

[@tengokukaiserreich1933]

Napoleonic wars with extra British holdings sound like a cool idea, especially with such different politics

[@JAKE-em5xr]

Cant wait for continuation of the scenario probably one of the best videos

[@rogeliovaldez6594]

Quality video top tier. One of the best out there

[@FasterThanRaito]

A Napoleonic-reformed France that takes over Europe, Exiling the British monarchy to America is the lore of my favorite mecha anime (Code Geass)

[@AlexMitchell-ct8tt]

I think the double what if, if the American revolution never happens but napoleon was still able to rise to power is a great idea and I have been waiting for that video for around 2 years now

[@mangoisdelicious9078]

I watched this again and I still think this is my favourite

[@kommandantgalileo]

Sure, a part 2 sounds great.

[@JWFInancialCoaching]

I like how he has some of West Virginia on the map, and how the south was less keen on independence than the north was

[@gabingston3430]

7:12 Weren't the French exploring Australia in our world? I think an Australia that isn't colonized by Britain could very well end up French, though a lot of that depends on whether the French Revolution and Napoleonic Wars still occur.

[@Owen-x1g]

The fish listened intently to what the frogs had to say.

[@ALMAZ157]

Fun fact, Napoleon actually tried to enlist to Russian army, but he would be one rank lover since he is foreign If there would be no revolution in France, he could’ve joined Russian army and be amongst Suvorov, Bagration and Barclay de Tolly

[@pierren___]

No, he asked because he didnt like the revolution. So he would have join the french royal army.

[@Avghistorian77]

He also tried to join the British Navy.

[@guycrew3973]

A Russia lead by napoleon would’ve dominated Europe with ease as France would unstable and in a lot of dept also with Prussia and Austria simply being too weak to resist his empire also probably wouldn’t have collapsed after his death

[@bishalboro3782]

UK: Hello friends, meet my son USA: Hello Other European countries: I also want a son like him

[@EpicgamerwinXD6669]

Personally, I find the scenerio of Canada rebelling against The British at the same time as the Americans, or Britain winning the American revolution only to fall to a successful invasion of the British isles to be more interesting variations on this scenario, but this option is cool too.

[@karlfranzemperorofmandefil5547]

The second scenario is practically impossible.

[@MCLegend13]

France was too broke Spain was the sick man of Europe and most others just weren’t strong enough.

[@kidfromtownwithnoname3595]

he actually did the second one in one of his videos (I think it was the "What if everything went good for the US " video).

[@EpicgamerwinXD6669]

@@karlfranzemperorofmandefil5547 yeah maybe, but still not entirely impossible, and a pretty cool scenario. Think about it, the United States would basically be the British government in Exile, and The UK would no longer be a European nation.

[@stargazer-elite]

@@karlfranzemperorofmandefil5547sure the British ruled the waves but with the combined navies of France, Spain and the Netherlands they might have a chance sure the Dutch never got directly involved but in that scenario they might

[@kurtvanderbogarde8402]

0:55 That parliament building was not built until the 1850s.

[@randomguy-tg7ok]

Why does your map at 0:50 show West Virginia as a distinct state?

[@rinhays4523]

0:51 I love the Great British Crown Colony of West Virginia

[@conlanvanhook2452]

3:40 Personally I don’t agree that the south would not remain close to Britain. The southern colonies, for the large part were what we called “crown colonies” here in the States, they were approved by the King, and founded by the Kings wealthy friends. Unlike the northern colonies which many times were founded by those fleeing the monarchy. The southern aristocracy was reliant on Britain for trade of plantation goods. It’s also documented that while never having a majority in any colony, loyalists were mostly concentrated in the South. Britains “Southern strategy” even relied on these loyalists to help Britain hold territory while the army advanced. In Georgia there were so many loyalists the colony nearly abandoned the revolution.

[@michaelbutterfield1602]

Hi there. I would go further. Had there been free and fair elections in the colonies in 1776, without violent intimidation, the Loyalist party would have won in New York, New Jersey, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, East Florida, and West Florida. Many who had supported the 'no taxation' of 1775 became neutral, or even Loyalist, when Congress called for Independence, followed by an alliance with France. Even John Adams acknowledged only a third wanted independence, a third supported who ever was winning, and a third stayed loyal. If Cornwallis hadn't broken his commission and taken the army for a tour of Virginia, instead of protecting the small garrisons, I believe the Loyal Militia would have held out, until a political solution could be found. By 1781, it was the French Navy threat and foreign loans that was keeping the revolution afloat. By the way, in the Carolinas most Loyalists were conservative-minded small farmers. The coastal merchant class (and the over-the-mountain men) were the rebels. Even the 'Regulators' in North Carolina, and those on the Ceded Lands in Georgia were mainly Loyalists. A real civil war! Cheers.

[@mappingshaman5280]

18:16 but the south african context was very different from the southern usa context. Racist laws in south africa started being established after the second boer war where britain annexed two boer republics which already had these racist views and laws as commonplace. The boers of course being a dutch minority whom were very capable fighters and already hated the british. Southern americans were very much anglo celtic and of course there were no jim crow style laws in place before reconstruction, so its very likely that jim crow wouldn't exist, as Britain doesn't have to appease an already pissed off minority and doesn't have any pre existing racist law system to deal with. Of course racist views were still in place, but they were everywhere and you didn't see jim crow everywhere.

[@NewDealChief]

Honey wake up, Possible History just posted a new video.

[@ashleygollin7150]

What's interesting about Australia in this scenario is that eventually Europe will find valuable resources such as coal, iron, and especially gold, and with out Britain as the power in the region, there could be a massive struggle over the continent down the line which could also reshape world politics.

[@godfreysanter1565]

Not to mention huge tracts of land on which to grow wheat, sugar and other crops, raise sheep for wool and meat and cattle for meat. Australia is among the world's largest producers of all these products; and its agricultural potential was not lost on the British colonisers of the late 18th century.

[@mikipiupew4107]

You missed the fact that Mexico probably would not exist in this timeline both because they didn't have an independent American nation to look up to and because of Napoleon not invading Spain

[@SunilDachmann-mg7mm]

What a great video so far

[@W1L7dev]

Just a correction: Quebec and Ontario (ig it's how they would be named) would still speak for most French, as British loyalists didn't leave the 13 colonies during the war of independence

[@concept5631]

Good point.

[@ALuimes]

Ontario, like the Mississippi valley, didn't have much French settlement

[@muhammadhabibieamiro3639]

Another amazing video

[@BritishEmpire1707]

Ah, now this! This is beautiful!

[@mangoisdelicious9078]

I love this alternate scenario, and that you included implications on Australia and other parts of the world at the same time was really good I will probably re-watch this video when my parents and guests aren't *talking over tea (these walls and their deafness makes it sound like shouting rather than talking).

[@smh4683]

I've a question. 1 other point of contention for the 13 colonies you didn't mention is that the province Lower Canada (Quebec) had not only been allowed to exist but also granted greater autonomy than the 13 colonies, as Québec was also a target of expansion for the colonies. If the colonies hadn't rebelled, do you think Québec would have survived, or would its francophone population have suffered the same fate as the Acadians before them?

[@morbinmorbiusthemorber3849]

Kinda surprised you didn't mention Japan just colonizing Australia tbh.

[@Didyouknowthatiexist]

Why would Japan do that though?

[@Didyouknowthatiexist]

What benefit would that bring to Japan?

[@morbinmorbiusthemorber3849]

@@Didyouknowthatiexist Japan needed resources which they could get from Australia and also had a lot of population in order to actually make use of the island.

[@dutch1665]

Video idea: what is history went perfect for The Netherlands (you must do if because you’re dutch)

[@rabbi4skin666]

3:37 the southern colonies were very loyal to the British in our time due to the cotton trade. I dont see that changing in this timeline.

[@evanneal4936]

Actually, did you forget that the colonies DID, in fact, have elected parliamentary representatives in Britain? But you are correct that the long distance and travel time made it unfeasible for both sides. But the main reason for independence was simply more autonomy from Britain, mostly to evade paying taxes. They wanted a more local government separate from and not influenced by Britain, but they DID have parliamentary representatives that were elected in America and sent to Britain with the appointed governor General as representatives so the "no taxation without representation" was just propaganda to stir up war support.

[@SuperHeroStoriesUnlimited]

Thats true america is known for tax evaders if we still owned then it would so much better slavery would have ended sooner we would have not had the nuclear bomb plans taken from us and not shared The americans would have free healthcare the native americans wouldnt have been killed yeah its just a better timeline

[@CountryBallsLATAM]

Love how the thirteen colonies have eyebrows with the lakes and rivers

[@ummdustry5718]

I feel like Australia (at least dejure) could have gone to the Japanese, the post revolutions Spanish or the Germans. There were plenty of people in the late 19th century who wanted the prestige of a colony, even if they lacked the economic incentives.

[@mappingshaman5280]

But without the matthew perry expedition, the japanese would still be isolationist

[@korgalis]

@@mappingshaman5280 if not us UK, France or Russia would force them to open up to get some profit from unequal treaties and trade

[@mappingshaman5280]

@@korgalis or maybe they'd just invade to colonise japan who knows

[@solgerWhyIsThereAnAtItLooksBad]

Japan would have been colonized had America not forced them to open up for global free trade while also stopping the Europeans from monopolizing parts if it Also, to be clear, this wasn’t an altruistic thing, we just wanted economic resources from them

[@snowman01]

It is interesting to think that without America's revolution, Australia's timeline is significantly altered

[@JustAnotherGuy-vx4po]

Scenario Idea: What if the Sassanians destroyed the Byzantine/Eastern Roman Empire in the Byzantine Sassanian War?

[@mappingshaman5280]

Well i see two scenarios play out. Option number one: the muslims conquer everything being able to infiltrate the balkans Option number two: the sassanids are able to hold on as a rump state in the byzantine territory they held onto in otl. This could further divide. Scenario one: muslim victory. With the balkans being conquered for islam the gates are open and muslims rapidly conquer the disunited tribes and dark age pre charlemagne kingdoms of europe. Maybe geography prevents them taking some parts like britain, scandinavia and parts of northern russia (it would simply be too far), but i imagine these would eventually islamise in much the same way indonesia did in otl. Essentially the whole old world will become muslim except maybe china, korea and Japan. Scenario one: muslim defeat. The balkans makes them overstretched and so like they were defeated at tours and codavonga in otl the muslims get pushed out of the balkans. By who im not sure. My favourite candidate would probably be the avars. The avars would eventually collapse due to being an essentially nomadic group controlling the apex of european civilisation and you would see tiny balkan states doing balkan things. Maybe muslims have a resurgence or maintain control of some parts. Scenario 2: sassanid collapse. This is the more likely scenario. Basically with being a persian zoroastrian nation ruling a greek christian population, they would just rebel. The muslims might take the opportunity to nab parts of anatolia but esentially byzantium just gets restored. Scenario 2: sassanid byzantium. Basically the sassanids largely take byzatiums role in history except with their culture instead. This could lead to zoroastrianism being the religion of the balkans and russia. I don't know what would happen if the turks still attack like in otl as i don't know how this theoretical sassanid dynasty would deal with it. If the turks do attack and win a manzikert style victory, the crusades still aren't happening due to the sassanids not being christian. If they don't attack or are unsuccessful then the sassanids basically just carry on.

[@MrWezzell]

Great work, one small thing that might help with clarity is if you were to label the map areas as the map evolves over time. I know for me at least it would be helpful so I can see what your really picturing.

[@pieraig915]

Video Idea: What if everything went perfect for Spain 😊

[@Airland-xx3pr]

It went... For a little while.

[@preston_1087]

3:36 Maryland is a southern state

[@danielsantiagourtado3430]

RULE BRITANNIA! Suggestion: What if everything went perfectly For britain? Love your content ph!😊😊😊❤❤❤❤

[@SuperJibulus]

Britain if everything went perfectly states “this isn’t even my final form” and changes into the Imperial Federation

[@jeffington1224]

Basically we would control the globe and would probably finally have a (mostly) unified earth

[@MrGilang100]

I think you should cover India as well in this scenario. One of the main reason britain focusing on India was the lost of American colony. Granted the result might be just more princely states, but it is one of the main avenue that the French can profitably strike back at the British.

[@zayedbinimran957]

Overall result: the natives survive inna much better state

[@nombremfalso]

Video idea: What if the spanish civil war never ended?

[@thefirstkingdogo1126]

If it lasted to 1940 Germany would be trying to controle all of Europe befor they attack the soviet union. They would steam role the place and make them self a new ally/puppet. Barbarosa would be a bit later and with more strength, would still fail..... it migth stabalise far into Russia after the fall of Stalingrad with the axis holding the defensive lines with a few million Spanish soldiers. D day would be far more difficult with 2 fronts if succes full and a big chunck of the spanish home guard to respond

[@th1v5]

Can we get what if everything went perfect for Petoria? Perhaps the US government is tied up with other problems allowing President Peter to annex the rest of Spooner Street with backing from Iraq and Cuba.

[@heynaa]

That sounds reasonable

[@cazza358]

But what if instead of independence, federalisation. Can do you a combo video on that?

[@PakBallandSami]

scholarly histories of the Revolution have been snooping around the edges, tying academic skepticism to modern rhetoric. According to a new perspective, we would be misinterpreting the Revolution if we portrayed it as a contemporary colonial uprising rather than an internal and fratricidal intellectual conflict within the English-speaking Empire.

[@ALuimes]

Canadian studies on the Revolution are more accurate...

[@masonharvath-gerrans832]

Nova Scotia was heavily influenced by New England after the expulsion of the Acadians. It was sometimes called the 14th colony in reference to its similar tensions with the Crown and their often open sympathies for their fellow countrymen in rebellion.

[@ALuimes]

It actually *was* a 14th colony.

[@masonharvath-gerrans832]

@ well, that and Quebec, Newfoundland, Florida, and the Caribbean colonies

[@ALuimes]

@@masonharvath-gerrans832 This makes me wonder if "13 colonies" was only a post-revolution label, at least with regard to the "Canadian" colonies which were connected to them.

[@masonharvath-gerrans832]

@ I‘d say that’s highly plausible

[@ckknews2085]

You have to do what if everything went perfectly for the British Empire

[@RexFuturi]

...the British colonies in the Caribbean were worth more than all 13 of the colonies that declared independence in 1776 put together.

[@doomi4055]

Scenario idea: What If everything went perfect for the Holy Roman Empire Possible History

[@denpadolt9242]

Considering Britain's track record with native peoples, I find it very doubtful that such large and well-defined Indigenous reserves would continue to hold their shapes for more than a few decades after their creation at the absolute latest, let alone exist as distinct entities with a separate relationship to the Crown. Britain was never too interested in protecting their Indigenous allies ever since the French defeat, and they'd never put their feet down on where settlers could or couldn't go if they had to keep those settlers content with British rule. The Floridian reserve, though... probably would be mostly intact compared to the other two.

[@Minecraftsmewtwo]

I was just thinking about the American revolution and then I saw you uploaded this 1 minute ago

[@brigantiasmemerepository6439]

The vast majority of Australia's population has no convict ancestry. In fact, the biggest population boom in Australian history was by far when the population tripled during the Australian gold rush. I see no reason why Australia would not be claimed by Britain, nor any reason for its population to be "significantly lower".

[@RoyalRegimentofScotland]

Ye the british government convinced and actually funded Britons to move to Australia to populate it even into the 1900s. Australia and Britain are still very close people wise many people have family living in both counties respectively. The whole prisoner story is just romanticised because it makes a funny story.

[@the_roman_emperor_fisheater]

We need a part 2

[@User20398]

What if the german revolution of 1848 succeeded

[@willie4445]

Video idea: What if everything went perfect for The Hapsburg Dynasty?

[@elianes5505]

He already did it, but honestly it was a bit of a bummer. It's only a bit over 10 minutes, when there could've been much more to explore.

[@MCLegend13]

Ahh the most based timeline for my birthday what an awesome present 🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧

[@possiblehistory]

Happy Birthday!

[@danielsantiagourtado3430]

​@@possiblehistoryyou're the Best man😊😊😊😊❤❤❤❤

[@danielsantiagourtado3430]

Happy Birthday ❤❤❤

[@MCLegend13]

@@possiblehistorythanks I’d definitely like to see the rise of Napoleon as well as British North America.

[@Elsass6768]

​@@possiblehistory do a video on Elsass, it can be interesting

[@Kivlor]

Idea: What if Pope Pius the IX had agreed to unify Italy under the Papal States when it was offered to him?

[@S1AR_DUS1]

The aforementioned Napoleonic / British North America scenario would be very interesting to see, though I doubt it will last as long as it did if it happened to start at the same time as in our timeline

[@rictechow231]

On the borders of settlement the same issue did occur in Australia and the settlers simply ignored and restrictions and local representation of Britain just capitulated. My state of Victoria - about the size of Utah - was settled in 10 years despite official obstruction. Sir Joseph Banks on Captain Cooks voyage was a lobbyist to settle Australia so there would have be some motivation to settle Australia without the AR but possibly not as soon.

[@Theover4000]

Hey Possible History, what if the Battle of Britain was lost? Would love to see your take on a potential sea lion, and whether or not you think it would’ve worked!

[@Theover4000]

YIppy

[@macaroon_nuggets8008]

Nice video, but there a a few border map inaccuracies (best seen at 3:27) that annoy me more than they should. West Virginia didn't exist yet, Vermont was a part of New York, not New Hampshire, and Maine was a part of Massachusetts.

[@solgerWhyIsThereAnAtItLooksBad]

How were they supposed to show the Maine thing?

[@macaroon_nuggets8008]

@@solgerWhyIsThereAnAtItLooksBad 3:27

[@solgerWhyIsThereAnAtItLooksBad]

@@macaroon_nuggets8008 ok yeah, that’s a bad error

[@Kaiser_Polaris]

0:30 laughs in Qing Dynasty

[@cm-jr9vt]

1:47 why west Virginia there

[@o5-1-formerlycalvinlucien60]

25 SECONDS ago?!

[@VATJON]

I saw it 46sec ago

[@IndoSlovenian-Animations]

3 MINUTES ago?!?!

[@alexgunning6910]

At some point people are going to discover gold in Australia, I think numerically the European settlement owes far more to this than to convicts...