The Gang of Five
Beyond the Mysterious Beyond => The Fridge => History Section => Topic started by: Chomper98 on August 12, 2012, 03:19:58 PM
-
I have always been a history buff, but I often wonder what would have happened if something major in history happened differently, like if the South won the civil war, or if the Germans won at Stalingrad, or if JFK didn't get shot. Does anyone here find this stuff interesting, or have any alternate history ideas? I personally find this quite interesting, even made one where the Confederacy wins the Civil war, and the whole world changes, but of course, the Union wins in the end. Anyone interested in this stuff can add something.
-
I never read an alternate history novel but I am interested in the genre. That and naturally caused apocalypses (such as climate change). Something about them has always fascinated me. I love "what if" scenarios and thinking about what might have been, or might be.
A novel I've been working on is an alternate history novel, taking place in a world where humans and dinosaurs live together. If you'd like me to tell you more, I'll PM it to you.
-
I am. Turtledoves books on the subject are amazing and i'd recommend reading them.
-
I never read an alternate history novel but I am interested in the genre. That and naturally caused apocalypses (such as climate change). Something about them has always fascinated me. I love "what if" scenarios and thinking about what might have been, or might be.
A novel I've been working on is an alternate history novel, taking place in a world where humans and dinosaurs live together. If you'd like me to tell you more, I'll PM it to you.
Thanks, sounds really interesting.
-
I am. Turtledoves books on the subject are amazing and i'd recommend reading them.
I heard about them, and it inspired my own alternate history. I'll look for them.
-
Well, I'm definitely interested!
Never really considered myself as being a history buff of any sort, but this kind of stuff has always left me thinking...
-
I used to read ATLs (alternate timelines) on the Alternate History forum a lot, but not so much anymore. I love alternate history, but I have to balance it with the many other interests I have. Some of my favourite ATLs would be "Gorbachev MkII", an ATL about Gorbachev being more competent in Soviet economic reform, thus making the Soviet transition to capitalism and democracy more gradual, with the USSR remaining a superpower through the 1990s and 2000s, then "Neuropa", a timeline where Germany defeats the USSR, the Western Allies defeat Italy and Japan, Germany acquires nuclear weapons and through its control of almost all Europe emerges as a superpower stronger than the USSR in our timeline, and enters a cold war with the USA, and a timeline where a Mongol fleet (and their Chinese and Korean auxiliaries) lands in Central America 200 years before Europeans.
-
My story for the Confederate's victory is this:
1863- Lee wins the battle of Gettysburg, which earns the Confederacy recognition from Britain and France, and force mediation between the USA and the CSA.
1863- But just weeks later, Lincoln orders another invasion, before the Emancipation Proclamation is declared, in response, Britain and France declare support for the C.S, and invade the United States, defeating the U.S yet again.
1863- Lincoln resigns from office, and the US, with huge debt from the civil war, plus reparations to the south, America falls into an economic depression, which lasts into 1871.
1871- Prussia unifies the German states, with the exception of Austria, and sympathetic to America, Kaiser Wilhelm I loans America money, which allows the U.S economy to get back on its feet, and America, grateful, to ally with Germany.
1875- The British create the HMS Dreadnought, ushering in the age of Battleships.
1914- The world is divided between the Allied Powers(Britain, France, Russia, Serbia, Greece, Romania, and the Confederacy) and the Central Powers(Germany, Austria-Hungary, Bulgaria, the Ottoman Empire, and the United States).
1914- On June 28th, Archduke Franz Ferdidand and his wife are shot to death by a Serb, and Austria declares war on Serbia in August.
1914- Austria is backed by Germany, while Serbia is backed by Russia, and Germany declares war on Russia and France, and invades Belgium to get to France, Britain then declares war on Germany.
1914- The U.S declares war on the C.S on August 8th, asked by President William Howard Taft. Confederate President Woodrow Wilson tries to mediate between the Allies and Central Powers, though America's declaration of war ends all hope for peace.
1914- Wilson orders the Confederates to capture Washington, and they advance deep into Maryland, but the Americans hold off the Confederate advance, and invade the British Dominion Canada.
1914- Germany crushes the Allied lines in Belgium and advance into France, but are stopped at the Battle of the Marne.
1915- Confederates in New Mexico and Arizona invade Nevada, Colorado, and California, and the Western Campaign begins, which lasts into 1917.
1915- The Battle of Manhattan occurs between the navies of the United States, Germany, and Austria against the British, French, and Confederate Navies, ending in a costly Central Power victory.
1915- America breaks through the Anglo-Canadian lines and a small German army outfights the Russian army.
1915- T'sar Nicholas II takes command of the troops, and his poor leadership causes massive losses.
1916- Wilson is defeated by Confederate president Joseph Jackson Smith for dragging the CSA into war(the reason he won reelection in our timeline was for keeping the USA out of the war).
1916- Pro-United States black slaves revolt, and are massacred by the Confederacy, which America uses as propaganda against the Confederacy.
1917- America wins the Western Campaign when General George A. Custer outflanks and defeats the Confederate Army(he survived because no Battle of Little Bighorn occured).
1917- Germany finally defeats Russia and Russia decends into anarchy.
1917- Yankee troops break through the Confederate lines and invade Virginia, the U.S troops in the west invade Texas, Arizona, and New Mexico, and force the Canadians to surrender.
1918- The United States captures Richmond, and forces President Smith to surrender. America declares victory, and turns her attention from the Confederacy to Europe, where Germany is planning the Summer Offensive.
1918- A German-American invasion occurs and Paris is captured; the British navy mutinies and Britain is forced to surrender, ending World War I.
1918- The American people celebrate hard in finally winning revenge against the Confederates, and the Treaty of Versailes places outrageous terms on the Allies(Britain is forced to relinquish her empire to Germany, the North Western area of Virginia, New Mexico, Arizona, Texas, and Arkansas are annexed by the United States, and the Confederate army is limited to 100,000 troops, and two billion dollars in reparation are given to Germany and America by the Confederacy. Russia loses much of her western border with Germany, out of which the countries of Poland, Latvia, Lithunia, Estonia, and Finland are created.)
1923- A former Confederate veteran and extreme racist, Albert Featherstone, takes the lead of the 'Vengeance' party(analogous to the Nazi Party) and begins campaigning for the presidency.
1929- American stock market crashes, causing the Great Depression.
1933- Featherstone is elected president due to his promises for a new economy, and revenge against the Central Powers.
1935- Featherstone approves a massive rearmanent program and unveils a new airforce and tank divisions(analogous to the Lufwaffe and Panzers).
1936- Italy's monarchy is overthrown and a republic is declared(Italy was an allied power in World War I) and signs a friendship pact with America and Germany.
1937- Japan invades China, and America supports China.
1938- The Confederacy's battleships Davis and Semmes(analogous to the Bismarck and Tirpitz) are completed.
1939- Russia invades Poland on September 1st(same day Germany invaded Poland in our timeline) Italy and Germany declare war on Russia, in response, Britain and France declare war on Germany and Italy.
1939- America declares war on Britain, France, Russia, prepares for war with the CSA.
1940- Japanese bombers attack Pearl Harbor(leading the US to officially declare war on Japan), Russia siezes the Baltics.
1940- Battle of Finland ends with a Russian victory, Holland and Belgium are attacked by Germany because they were discovered harboring British and French troops.
1940- Norway declares Neutrality, but Britain invades it to prevent iron ore from getting to Germany, in response, Norway declares war, and with German and Italian support, staves off the Allied attack.
1940- Holland and Belgium are liberated by Britain and France, and British troops in North Africa invade Italy from the south.
1941- Canada invades America, and the Confederacy launches a massive attack on June 22(same day Germany invaded the Soviet Union) Illinois, Ohio, Michigan, Minnesota, and Wisconsin are captured, splitting the American front in two.
1941- Allied troops advance into Germany, and begin an invasion, though German and Italian defenses cause massive losses.
1942- Battle of Midway occurs, and America begins to push back the Japanese.
1942- Battle of Berlin ends in Allied victory, leaving America alone to fight the Allies.
1942- Battle of Washington D.C. occurs, where Americans lose millions of men, but win, turning the tide.
1943- Italian and German rebels, spurred by the American victories against Japan and Italy, revolt, and begin guerrilla fighting, further weakening the Allied Lines.
1943- China defeats Japan at the battle of Beijing, and and a Sino-American force lands in northern Japan.
1944- Americans retake Minnesota and invade Virginia.
1944- America develops the Atomic Bomb one year early, and uses it against Richmond. Richmond is nearly destroyed, and Featherstone, the CS government, and leaders of the army are killed, the Confederate governors now in control capitulate and Canada surrenders when threatened with the Atomic bomb.
1945- In March, Britain and France try to finish their atomic program, but fail to when their research sites are bombed and the British fleet bases are bombed.
1945- April, 2 million Central Power troops cross the Atlantic ocean and land in England, quickly overwhelming the British army, and capture London.
1945- They cross the English channel and invade France, which is overrun two months later. August begins with the defeat of France, and the invasion of Holland and Belgium, which are crushed, and the Liberation of Germany.
1945- American troops cross the Rhine and liberate Germany, and bomb the Russian bases on the original border between them and the east. Death camps filled with black prisoners are discovered in the Confederacy.
1945- Italian rebels succeed in overthrowing their Allied Occupiers, and join the American led force in invading Russia. America announces the Death Camps to the world.
1946- Millions of American casualties occur in Japan and Russia, but victory is assured when America bombs Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and threatening to do the same to Moscow. Confederate Death camps are liberated, and the Vengeance party is outlawed, and remaining Confederate officers are tried for crimes against humanity(analogous to the Nuremburg trials).
1946- Russia surrenders, and America declares victory, but it occurs at a terrible cost, 10 million military deaths in the entire war, aswell as the loss of 50 ships in the navy, including two aircraft carriers and 10 Battleships, even so, the war ends following America's victory.
1947- A pole is opened for whether or not to absorb the Confederacy, but poles showed only 7% wanted it, America had suffered to much because of the south, and they wanted nothing to do with them, even so, America occupied it, along with most of continental Europe, though Germany and Italy occupied Europe the most.
1948- Former Central Power and Allied Power relations improve as they treat the allies much better, and fraternization occurs between soldiers and civilians.
1949- Germany develops the Atomic Bomb, and the newest Kaiser, Friedrich VII makes Germany a constitutional monarchy.
1950- America and the Confederacy sign a pact of friendship, and American troops leave the Confederacy.
1960- American soldiers leave Europe, and Russia launches Sputnik.
1969- Neil Armstrong is the first human to walk on the moon.
1970- Civil rights movements for blacks are victorious, and slavery is outlawed in the Confederacy.
I will update this later on.
-
^So in this scenario, the South doesn't become a raw materials appendage to the North, but to Britain instead. You delayed American rise to greatest power status and prolonged Pax Britannica. However, you also opened a probable new front for WW1 in North America, therefore limiting possible American involvement, and thus ensuring Central Powers' victory in continental Europe. Britain still dominates the seas, the North finally subjugates the South, and Germany dominates contine.tal Europe. You created a tripolar, Germanic-dominated world.
EDIT: I'm sorry. When I saw your post you just left placeholders for the events in WW1. I didn't think you would update you post so fast.
-
^So in this scenario, the South doesn't become a raw materials appendage to the North, but to Britain instead. You delayed American rise to greatest power status and prolonged Pax Britannica. However, you also opened a probable new front for WW1 in North America, therefore limiting possible American involvement, and thus ensuring Central Powers' victory in continental Europe. Britain still dominates the seas, the North finally subjugates the South, and Germany dominates contine.tal Europe. You created a tripolar, Germanic-dominated world.
EDIT: I'm sorry. When I saw your post you just left placeholders for the events in WW1. I didn't think you would update you post so fast.
I thought it would be better if I used dates to form a timeline, making it easier to understand what year it is in this timeline.
-
I believe that history is extremely easy to change even by seemingly minor events. Also important events most likely have a much further reaching effect than meets the eye. For example in case of the Lincoln assassination one needs to take into account that beyond the uncountable other effects billions of later people would never spend any time reading, learning, being taught about the specific event or watch documentaries about it. How many times people may have gotten to know each other because of a shared interest in the matter or how many times they might get to know each other if person X goes somwhere because there is no documentary to watch that evening? It is perhaps a bad example, but in many cases history seems to be determined by minor aspects. My Dad didn't even want to go to the party where he got to know my Mum and was talked into comming along. Or how many people ow their existence to an alarm clock not working properly? :p
A big change of one historic event would likely cast waves causing most of the events that would have otherwise taken place not to occur or to occur in a rather different manner. For example (and this is not meant to be in any way against you Chomper) it is rather uncertain if the wave effect of a different outcome of the American Civil War would not have caused such familiar events as the assassination of the Archduke Franz Ferdinand or the battle of Midway to take place at all. An America divided after the Civil War might have had less of an eye on expansion in the second half of the 19th century and as a result a different power (Japan showed a lot of interest) might have turned Hawaii into their colony. Chances are also that in case of a different outcome of the civil war the resulting nations might have divided up further. Had the civil war established a "right to leave the union" the same might have occured again. In a "mild" variant there could have been a third nation making up for the Pacific coast where people might have felt that their interests were better served by an own government rather than one in far away Washington or Richmond. In a more severe scenario a different outcome of the Civil War might have resulted in a perception of democracy as not working properly resulting in forms of government to change. Smaller issues (taxes etc.) could have caused the new states to split up further. There might have been the independent Kingdom of Carolina, the Archduchery of Alabama, the empire of Texas or the like. In this scenario the state of near constant little wars which have so strongly influenced much of European history might have sipped over to America. Maybe the native Americans could have become beneficiaries of such a development and built up a stronger territorial claim against many smaller nations to busy to skirmish among each other to push into their lands with as much vigor as they historically did. Speaking of native Americans, with Custer being in active service in 1917 in your timeline he would become not only one of the youngest generals (in the civil war) but at age 78 also one of the oldest in active duty. Not impossible - just a funfact.
Sometimes there are cases in history where we may think "if only this has worked differently" but where there may have been not exclusively positive effects.
Take this scenario for example:
The weather took a rather nasty turn over then Eastern Prussia on the 20th of July 1944. The meeting scheduled for that day was therefore held in the massive bunker rather than in the lighter build conference room which had been suggested to be the meeting place in case the hot weather of the last few days had lasted. The effect of the bomb brought to the meeting by Klaus Schenk Graf von Stauffenberg proves davastating in the bunker (where the compression of the explosion could not escape the way it did in the wooden conference room). Hitler and everyone who was in the room at the time are dead.
This is one of the many "if only" scenarios which history provides. It may have caused WW2 in Europe to end almost a year earlier (and the most bloody, destructive, and pointless (for everyone not totally crazy could see that Germany had long lost the war by July 20th 1944) year at that). However, the intentions of the assassins and the political consequences are often overlooked. One of the ideas was to open Germany up for the Western Allies hoping to keep the Soviet Union as far from Germany as possible. Perhaps even to continue the war against the Soviet Union with England and America as allies rather than enemies.
If such a war would have resulted from a successful assassination of Hitler may be questioned, but it cannot really be excluded. Would the unprecedented crimes committed by Germany be sufficient to deter England and the USA from an alliance against the Soviet Union (with Stalin being a close follow up in the contest for the rank of most terrible dictator of the time)? In any case demands would have been made for the Soviet Union to settle with much less territorial gains than it did and it is uncertain if Stalin would have accepted that. He had a HUGE military machine set in motion by now and without denying the effect of the supplies provided by the USA in the lend and lease program it ought not to be overlooked that the Soviet Union's own production was huge (with many facilities being located beyond the Ural and therefore out of range of enemy bombs), and the quality of their weaponry splendid in many cases (e.g. German soldiers often exchanged their weapons for Soviet guns that were deemed more reliable, the T34 was one of the most successful tanks in all WW2 and the Illjushin Ill2 Stormovik probably the most successfull battle plane to support the troops on the ground). That in his mind it is not likely that Stalin would have settled for territorial gains anywhere close to the front lines of July 20th 1944. Winston Churchill however would have tried everything to keep Soviet sphere of influence as small as possible (he had actually advocated for the invasion to take place in Greece rather than Normandy with the barely concealed intention of not only defeat Germany, but especially to keep the Soviet Union far from Eruope). In 1945 Churchill actually ordered for a scenario to be worked out that assumed an Anglo American Attack to be launched on the Soviet Union in July 1945. The operation was a thought play and accordingly code named "operation unthinkable" but given the conditions in case of a successful assassination plot of July 20th 1944 the thought may not have been quite as unthinkable to Anglo American leaders if Stalin hadn't settled for moderate territorial gains only (which he most likely wouldn't have). In the documents the British strategists consider the chances of a military success of an attack against the Soviet Union to be almost non-existent. The scenario is not based on any awareness of the existence of the nuclear bomb however...
-
Malte, you don't have to believe that history is very easy to change. It is a mathematically and experimentally proven fact.
Alternate history can be a fun intellectual exercise. But not much more. From a physical point of view writing alternate history doesn't make much sense, because the universe is indeterminate, which means that from the current state (knowing the state of each particle in the universe) of the universe we cannot predict its next state, thanks to quantum mechanics.
But that never stopped anyone from asking himself/herself: "What if?" ;)
-
There is one question that cannot possibly be answered but which I still find something to think about.
There are plenty of stories about famous people from history very narrowly escaping death prior to or early in their famous careers (e.g. Hitler almost getting killed several times throughout WW1, John F. Kennedy nearly getting killed when his torpedo boat was sunk, kings such as Frederick II. of Prussia and Charles XII. of Sweden being hit in battle with the bullets being deflected by stuff they had in their pockets / or necklaces they were wearing). But thh the matter can also be turned around. With millions of people slaughtered in war or killed in disasters, how many of them would have become future presidents or dictators, revolutionaries, artists, scientists etc. How many people were actually killed of whom people would say "Imagine the what if he / she hadn't had his narrow escape back then?" if they hadn't been?
-
In my opinion if you want to read alternate history you just have to read a history coursebook.
-
@Malte: while it is impossible to put a definite number on the number of potential "important" actors of history, we can say with confidence, from what we know about chaos theory, that the number must be very large. But it doesn't have to encompass all of mankind, or even most of it. Human society on its own is a relatively simple macroscopic system (simple when compared to the biological systems surrounding it, including human bodies), so in a reasonably short interval of time we can ignore quantum and chaotic effects and say that the system is quasy-deterministic i.e. quasy-predictable.
I don't have the data and computing power to give any definite numbers, nor even an exact model, but I think the framework I outlined in the paragraph above is a useful way to think about answering your question.
-
I believe that history is extremely easy to change even by seemingly minor events. Also important events most likely have a much further reaching effect than meets the eye. For example in case of the Lincoln assassination one needs to take into account that beyond the uncountable other effects billions of later people would never spend any time reading, learning, being taught about the specific event or watch documentaries about it. How many times people may have gotten to know each other because of a shared interest in the matter or how many times they might get to know each other if person X goes somwhere because there is no documentary to watch that evening? It is perhaps a bad example, but in many cases history seems to be determined by minor aspects. My Dad didn't even want to go to the party where he got to know my Mum and was talked into comming along. Or how many people ow their existence to an alarm clock not working properly? :p
A big change of one historic event would likely cast waves causing most of the events that would have otherwise taken place not to occur or to occur in a rather different manner. For example (and this is not meant to be in any way against you Chomper) it is rather uncertain if the wave effect of a different outcome of the American Civil War would not have caused such familiar events as the assassination of the Archduke Franz Ferdinand or the battle of Midway to take place at all. An America divided after the Civil War might have had less of an eye on expansion in the second half of the 19th century and as a result a different power (Japan showed a lot of interest) might have turned Hawaii into their colony. Chances are also that in case of a different outcome of the civil war the resulting nations might have divided up further. Had the civil war established a "right to leave the union" the same might have occured again. In a "mild" variant there could have been a third nation making up for the Pacific coast where people might have felt that their interests were better served by an own government rather than one in far away Washington or Richmond. In a more severe scenario a different outcome of the Civil War might have resulted in a perception of democracy as not working properly resulting in forms of government to change. Smaller issues (taxes etc.) could have caused the new states to split up further. There might have been the independent Kingdom of Carolina, the Archduchery of Alabama, the empire of Texas or the like. In this scenario the state of near constant little wars which have so strongly influenced much of European history might have sipped over to America. Maybe the native Americans could have become beneficiaries of such a development and built up a stronger territorial claim against many smaller nations to busy to skirmish among each other to push into their lands with as much vigor as they historically did. Speaking of native Americans, with Custer being in active service in 1917 in your timeline he would become not only one of the youngest generals (in the civil war) but at age 78 also one of the oldest in active duty. Not impossible - just a funfact.
Sometimes there are cases in history where we may think "if only this has worked differently" but where there may have been not exclusively positive effects.
Take this scenario for example:
The weather took a rather nasty turn over then Eastern Prussia on the 20th of July 1944. The meeting scheduled for that day was therefore held in the massive bunker rather than in the lighter build conference room which had been suggested to be the meeting place in case the hot weather of the last few days had lasted. The effect of the bomb brought to the meeting by Klaus Schenk Graf von Stauffenberg proves davastating in the bunker (where the compression of the explosion could not escape the way it did in the wooden conference room). Hitler and everyone who was in the room at the time are dead.
This is one of the many "if only" scenarios which history provides. It may have caused WW2 in Europe to end almost a year earlier (and the most bloody, destructive, and pointless (for everyone not totally crazy could see that Germany had long lost the war by July 20th 1944) year at that). However, the intentions of the assassins and the political consequences are often overlooked. One of the ideas was to open Germany up for the Western Allies hoping to keep the Soviet Union as far from Germany as possible. Perhaps even to continue the war against the Soviet Union with England and America as allies rather than enemies.
If such a war would have resulted from a successful assassination of Hitler may be questioned, but it cannot really be excluded. Would the unprecedented crimes committed by Germany be sufficient to deter England and the USA from an alliance against the Soviet Union (with Stalin being a close follow up in the contest for the rank of most terrible dictator of the time)? In any case demands would have been made for the Soviet Union to settle with much less territorial gains than it did and it is uncertain if Stalin would have accepted that. He had a HUGE military machine set in motion by now and without denying the effect of the supplies provided by the USA in the lend and lease program it ought not to be overlooked that the Soviet Union's own production was huge (with many facilities being located beyond the Ural and therefore out of range of enemy bombs), and the quality of their weaponry splendid in many cases (e.g. German soldiers often exchanged their weapons for Soviet guns that were deemed more reliable, the T34 was one of the most successful tanks in all WW2 and the Illjushin Ill2 Stormovik probably the most successfull battle plane to support the troops on the ground). That in his mind it is not likely that Stalin would have settled for territorial gains anywhere close to the front lines of July 20th 1944. Winston Churchill however would have tried everything to keep Soviet sphere of influence as small as possible (he had actually advocated for the invasion to take place in Greece rather than Normandy with the barely concealed intention of not only defeat Germany, but especially to keep the Soviet Union far from Eruope). In 1945 Churchill actually ordered for a scenario to be worked out that assumed an Anglo American Attack to be launched on the Soviet Union in July 1945. The operation was a thought play and accordingly code named "operation unthinkable" but given the conditions in case of a successful assassination plot of July 20th 1944 the thought may not have been quite as unthinkable to Anglo American leaders if Stalin hadn't settled for moderate territorial gains only (which he most likely wouldn't have). In the documents the British strategists consider the chances of a military success of an attack against the Soviet Union to be almost non-existent. The scenario is not based on any awareness of the existence of the nuclear bomb however...
Yeah, alot of stuff may not happen, but I personally believe that World War I was inevitable because of Kaiser Wilhelm II, he brought Germany into the war, bringining Russia, France and Britain in after, I believe it wouldn't matter if America had lost the civil war, World War I may still have happened, and if Britain and France mediated with the Confederacy, America would have hated them, and if the Confederacy allied with Britain and France to protect itself from the United States, then America may have done the same when Germany emerged as a world power. Likely, the outcome of World War I would have been different, America and the Confederacy would very likely be preoccupied with eachother, so in Europe, the war would be pretty much the same as in our timeline, and eventually Russia would have been defeated(it's Czar's poor leadership on the battlefield caused Russia's defeat), and Germany would have been able to focus soley on Britain and France, and with no America to assist them(America actually did save the allies when it joined, because Germany broke the allied lines in the summer offensive, when the Americans started to arrive in force) they would have been defeated, either with America defeating the Confederacy and helping Germany in Europe, or Germany defeating Britain and France and assisting America in North America. Yes World War I may have happened, but it is just creative license if a Hitler analogue came to power in the Confederacy, still was possible, just unlikely.
-
I often do speculate on such things. The RPing site I run has a few alterations to history taking place (though I try to keep it historically accurate as well). It's mostly minor things, like Nelson receiving command of the HMS San Josef instead of the Victory at Trafalgar, though even that brings up questions as well. What would happen if Nelson's ship had come alongside any other vessel except the Redoubtable? Redoubtable was the only one that had trained sharpshooters at that battle, so what if Nelson survived? The biggest question for me though, is what would've happened had Napoleon won Waterloo? Probably not much, as he still had to contend with Austria and Russia, and even if he HAD managed to broker peace, he would've died from stomach cancer only six years later anyway.
So yes, alternate histories are part of my musings as well. :yes
-
The biggest question for me though, is what would've happened had Napoleon won Waterloo? Probably not much, as he still had to contend with Austria and Russia, and even if he HAD managed to broker peace, he would've died from stomach cancer only six years later anyway.
One might argue that the cancer too may have been influenced by psychological elements. Nevertheless I consider the battle of Waterloo one of the most overestimated in human history. Not to sound unfair or anything, but my guess is that its significance was by far blown up because it was the only major battle the English won against Napoleon when he was actually participating in the battle. As a consequence countless towns, bridges, a major station in London etc. were named after the little village of Waterloo, which, come to think of it, must sound kind of odd given the English meaning of the word parts "water" and "loo". There had been the suggestion to name the battle after the place where Napoleon had his headquaters, "La belle alliance" which would have also had a nice dubble meaning (it translates to "The beautiful alliance") given the alliance of English, Prussians, Dutch etc. who fought there.
Anyway, I see no way Napoleon could have remained in power for long even if he had won a sound victory at Waterloo. He no longer had the staff of highly talented generals who made many of his earlier triumphs possible, his support with the people had also suffered (though many might perceive him as the lesser of two evils given the rather unimpressive Louis XVIII and his restoration policy), France's supply of men fit for military service had been drained, and the determination of the other European rulers not to make any compromises with Napoleon had never been greater. The battle of Waterloo has become probably the most famous of all battles involving Napoleon, it has become proverbial for a defeat, but I believe the significance of the battle for the course of European history is probably grossly exaggerated.
-
Hence why I said I don't think things would've changed. He would've had to stand against Austria and Russia, and probably Sweden as well. I WILL however debate you on the point of the cancer. His father died of the same thing (though I will concede that experts aren't certain if the tumor in Carlo's stomach WAS cancerous or not) at an even earlier age (38 as opposed to Napoleon's 51), so if anything, psychological factors might not have played as great a role as simple genetics here. Although, I believe I read somewhere in a new article that his diet at the time may have exacerbated ulcers, which greatly increased one's risk for developing stomach cancer if one had genetic predispositions for it. Her certainly was a very fast eater, which often causes indigestion (and did in his case).
A bigger thing than Waterloo would be what would've occurred had the Fifth Coalition not broken out, and Napoleon hadn't taken over Spain? What would've happened after Friedland and the Treaties of Tilsit? At that point Napoleon was arguably at the height of his power, and hadn't overextended himself to the point of it being dangerous. I feel the Fifth Coalition was probably inevitable, but I do think about what would have happened had it not taken place, and Napoleon kept out of Spain (which in part helped to encourage Austria to launch war once he became embroiled on the Iberian Peninsula).
Referencing THIS article is why I debate you on the cancer thing ;) http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/20...napoleon_2.html (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/01/070117-napoleon_2.html)
-
What I said about the cancer was not meant to say that he wouldn't have ever got any, but I don't believe that he (or anyone) is "destined" to die on May 5th 1821 specifically no matter what. Psychological elements do play a significant role in many diseases including even cancer. I don't mean to say that he wouldn't have gotten any cancer, but he might have lived longer than he did on St. Helena under the impression of having been ultimately defeated.
-
I wasn't debating that though Malte. All I was saying was I think psychological factors played less into it than his diet and genetics did. He lived in such a way that he probably had a better chance of survival (he had half his mother's genes after all) than his father did, but that various other factors played into it, regardless of psychological ones. The medical evidence basically says that either way he would've died from this, though I am by no means claiming it would've been on the exact date he died as well. Some other accident could've befallen him before then of course.
I don't disagree with you that he probably would've lived longer too had it not been in exile, though how much longer I think is debatable, and I doubt he would've lived past his fifties given his diet and genetics.
-
Alternate human history doesn't often appeal to me a lot since it tends to be set in recent times. I'm not sure I've seen any that involved ancient peoples, which is where my interests in history usually lie. But I love speculative zoology, if that counts.
-
Ah yes. I love alternate history involving animals, like what if x animal became dominant instead of y animal, or what if x animal never went extinct, so y animal never existed.
-
Battles that were truly decisive, as Waterloo would have been a minor victory if Napoleon won, as, like Pterano said, he would still have to contend with Russia and Austria, and if there's one thing history has taught us, it is NOT to invade Russia. The only time I remember actually getting defeated was in 1917, as Germany actually knocked out Russia, were Gettysburg and Stalingrad.
Gettysburg was the turning point of the Civil War, and if Lee won, Washington D.C. would have been in striking range, and we all know what would happen if they captured Washington. It was also the largest battle in North America, 165,000 troops, that is nothing compared to Stalingrad, but still was large, and it was decisive.
Stalingrad was the second largest in WWII, and was the bloodiest day in human history, more then the entire western front combined. It was the battle where the Soviets turned the tide, and could take the offensive. If it was lost, the war would be lost, first, Russia would have been forced to retreat, and the Germans could take Moscow, which would have been a German version of the Battle of Berlin.
And with no eastern front, Germany could turn to the west, where their millions of soldiers could be stationed. Normandy would have been a bloody battle, and even if it was a victory, Germany would throw its entire army at the allies, overwhelming them, and likely causing America to sue for peace, withdrawing from the war, and Britain falling to a renewed Operation Sealion. Likely, America would focus on Japan, and defeat it with the A-bomb.
This would result in two Superpowers(England would have been defeated, Italy already was by 1944, and Japan would still be defeated), the United States and Nazi Germany.
A cold war would likely happen, and Germany and America would support different sides in Proxy wars. If Germany developed the H-Bomb, then the world would be screwed, Hitler would eventually threaten the United States with nuclear war, and either America would surrender, or the world would be obliterated.
Scary huh? We are lucky Stalingrad was a Russian victory.
-
The only time I remember actually getting defeated was in 1917, as Germany actually knocked out Russia
Though this one was owed more to the revolution of a large part of the Russian people rather than the German army. It created the wrong impression for Hitler of the Soviet Union as a defenseless giant (an impression further fostered by the Soviet Unions extreme difficulties in dealing with so small a victim as Finnland). What was overlooked was that Stalin in his earlier terror regime had systematically killed off pretty much everyone who might rise up against him resulting in an atmosphere of fear that made such an uprising less likely than it was in 1917.
...and we all know what would happen if they captured Washington.
There is some likelihood that the north would have given up, especially because of the series of defeats preceeding the year before Gettysburg which resulted in the morale on the northern homefront to be relatively low.
However, I would not quite go so far as to consider the war as won by the south if they had won at Gettysburg. Let's assume that Pickett's charge would have conquered Cemetery Ridge and that the north decided to withdraw in spite of still having more significant reserves than the south did (Sedgewick's VI. Corps had seen only relatively small action the previous day). It would have been another huge triumph for the south, but nevertheless it would have been a triumph that reduced Lee's army quite a bit. Of course the Federal losses where heavy too, but not enough to bridge the superiorty in numbers between the Army of the Potomac and the Army of Northern Virginia. If after Gettysburg the North had retreated to Washington it would have been a huge prestige gain for the South, but they would now face a numerically superior enemy in heavy fortifications. When Jubal Early got within sight of Washington in 1864 with the fortifications manned by the VI. Corps (same that had been mostly in reserve at Gettysburg) he deceided against a major attack that would have almost certainly resulted in the destruction of his command.
Nevertheless the thought can be driven further. What IF the South had captured Washington? Let's assume Lee had followed the course of action advocated by Longstreet to place himself and his army in a defensive position between the Army of the Potomac and Washington. Let's assume the north as a result would have been defeated in Fredericksburg style and that Lee's triumphant army afterwards would have marched into a barely defended Washington. Lincoln and many members of Congress would probably be evacuated by boat. This would have been the ultimate disaster for the North. Chances are that it would have resulted in protests in the north growing too strong to continue the war and that there might have been a peace.
It would have been a peace caused by the inner resistance within the North rather than the military defeat though (similar in that sense to Russia 1917). Such a scenario is possible given the morale in the North and the strong rifts between republicans and democrats.
However, I don't think that a capture of the highly symbolic D.C. would have won a war because of anything other than the symbolism. The strategic significance of Washington (town in a former swamp surrounded by slavestates) was minor compared to that of some of the large industrial towns in the north. America had lost its capitals two times before. It was torched by the British in 1814 (revenge for the Americans torching York = Toronto earlier in the war), but the war went on. During the American Revolution (which, given the high number of Loyalists had the character of a civil war), the British captured Philadelphia and the Continental Congress had to be evacuated first to Lancaster and then to York (I wonder if anyone then appreciated the allusion of these town names to the English Wars of the Roses) :p but the war continued.
Perhaps the capture of Washington in 1863 would not have ended a war which other than by breaking the northern morale or by gaining the support of other powers could not have been won by the south in the long run given the northern superiority in almost everything but cotton.
The main aim of the South, to gain political recognition and military support by England and France (the later was inclined to grant that support, but not without England) is not likely to have been achieved by the capture of Washington in 1863. The proclamation of Emancipation had made the political recognition of the south by a European power extremely unlikely by that time.
The battle of Gettysburg was unquestionably a turning point of the American Civil War, but if I was to settle for one single turning point I think I would consider the battle of Antietam and its consequences more decicive and more suitable for "what if" scenarios.
A tactical draw resulting in the withdraw of the South only after it was clear that the day after the battle (the 17th of September 1862 still is the bloodiest single day in American history) Federal commanding General George McClellan would not renew his attacks may seem an "unsatisfactory" turning point, but nonetheless I think it was. The significance of the battle was of course mainly political. Declaring the battle to be a great victory for the north it allowed Lincoln to pass the proclamation of emancipation which had been resting in a drawer for a while already. Lincoln had been advised to wait for a victory to pass the proclamation as anything else would have appeared like a measure of despair in the face of defeat. This proclamation (as mentioned before) made it practically impossible for a European power to recognize and support the south which left the south with the only chance of breaching the northern morale and the will to fight (a morale that turned out to be much stronger during the huge bloodshed in 1864 than many had expected).
Antietam is very suitable for "what if" scenarios in both directions.
If the south had won a distinct victory here it might in fact have resulted in recognition for the south by England and France which might have made it possible for the war to be won militarily rather than by just holding out with the hope that the morale of the north breaks first. If England had joined the war on the side of the south there would have been the superior British navy to lift the blockade and also the North would have had to fight a two front war along the south as well as the Canadian border.
The other direction of "what if" scenarios would be what if McClellan had been more determined at Antietam. I don't think there has been another time in the war when there was an army so "ready to be captured" as the army of Northern Virginia was with the Potomac in its back at Antietam. Had McClellan sent Porter's corps and all reserves in he probably would have been able to capture most of Lee's army which lacked much of a way of retreat (just one ford over the broad river). The destruction of the army of northern virginia (and a possible capture of commanders such as Lee, Jackson, and Longstreet) would have all but opened up the entire eastern theatre of the war for the North. A total federal victory at Antietam might have cut the war short by two years or even more, spared a lot of destruction and loss of life and perhaps it would have even limited the degree of the "Lost Cause" legend.
-
Stalingrad was the second largest in WWII, and was the bloodiest day in human history, more then the entire western front combined.
The battle of Stalingrad lasted for months though. The casualties included many prisoners (though many of them would die). The bloodiest single day in human history was not part of the battle of Stalingrad. The bloodiest day in European history (I think there may be an even bloodier day in Chinese history, but I'm not quite sure) was probably the 1st of July 1916, the first day of the battle of the Somme during WW1. British losses alone on that day ammounted to more than 57 000 men almost 20 000 of whom were dead rather than wounded (many of the wounded would later die or be disabled for life) or captured. French casualties are estimated to have been about 7000 and German losses about 10 000 that day. So it would ammount to about 74 000 people being killed or maimed or captured on a single day.
-
The only time I remember actually getting defeated was in 1917, as Germany actually knocked out Russia
Though this one was owed more to the revolution of a large part of the Russian people rather than the German army. It created the wrong impression for Hitler of the Soviet Union as a defenseless giant (an impression further fostered by the Soviet Unions extreme difficulties in dealing with so small a victim as Finnland). What was overlooked was that Stalin in his earlier terror regime had systematically killed off pretty much everyone who might rise up against him resulting in an atmosphere of fear that made such an uprising less likely than it was in 1917.
...and we all know what would happen if they captured Washington.
There is some likelihood that the north would have given up, especially because of the series of defeats preceeding the year before Gettysburg which resulted in the morale on the northern homefront to be relatively low.
However, I would not quite go so far as to consider the war as won by the south if they had won at Gettysburg. Let's assume that Pickett's charge would have conquered Cemetery Ridge and that the north decided to withdraw in spite of still having more significant reserves than the south did (Sedgewick's VI. Corps had seen only relatively small action the previous day). It would have been another huge triumph for the south, but nevertheless it would have been a triumph that reduced Lee's army quite a bit. Of course the Federal losses where heavy too, but not enough to bridge the superiorty in numbers between the Army of the Potomac and the Army of Northern Virginia. If after Gettysburg the North had retreated to Washington it would have been a huge prestige gain for the South, but they would now face a numerically superior enemy in heavy fortifications. When Jubal Early got within sight of Washington in 1864 with the fortifications manned by the VI. Corps (same that had been mostly in reserve at Gettysburg) he deceided against a major attack that would have almost certainly resulted in the destruction of his command.
Nevertheless the thought can be driven further. What IF the South had captured Washington? Let's assume Lee had followed the course of action advocated by Longstreet to place himself and his army in a defensive position between the Army of the Potomac and Washington. Let's assume the north as a result would have been defeated in Fredericksburg style and that Lee's triumphant army afterwards would have marched into a barely defended Washington. Lincoln and many members of Congress would probably be evacuated by boat. This would have been the ultimate disaster for the North. Chances are that it would have resulted in protests in the north growing too strong to continue the war and that there might have been a peace.
It would have been a peace caused by the inner resistance within the North rather than the military defeat though (similar in that sense to Russia 1917). Such a scenario is possible given the morale in the North and the strong rifts between republicans and democrats.
However, I don't think that a capture of the highly symbolic D.C. would have won a war because of anything other than the symbolism. The strategic significance of Washington (town in a former swamp surrounded by slavestates) was minor compared to that of some of the large industrial towns in the north. America had lost its capitals two times before. It was torched by the British in 1814 (revenge for the Americans torching York = Toronto earlier in the war), but the war went on. During the American Revolution (which, given the high number of Loyalists had the character of a civil war), the British captured Philadelphia and the Continental Congress had to be evacuated first to Lancaster and then to York (I wonder if anyone then appreciated the allusion of these town names to the English Wars of the Roses) :p but the war continued.
Perhaps the capture of Washington in 1863 would not have ended a war which other than by breaking the northern morale or by gaining the support of other powers could not have been won by the south in the long run given the northern superiority in almost everything but cotton.
The main aim of the South, to gain political recognition and military support by England and France (the later was inclined to grant that support, but not without England) is not likely to have been achieved by the capture of Washington in 1863. The proclamation of Emancipation had made the political recognition of the south by a European power extremely unlikely by that time.
The battle of Gettysburg was unquestionably a turning point of the American Civil War, but if I was to settle for one single turning point I think I would consider the battle of Antietam and its consequences more decicive and more suitable for "what if" scenarios.
A tactical draw resulting in the withdraw of the South only after it was clear that the day after the battle (the 17th of September 1862 still is the bloodiest single day in American history) Federal commanding General George McClellan would not renew his attacks may seem an "unsatisfactory" turning point, but nonetheless I think it was. The significance of the battle was of course mainly political. Declaring the battle to be a great victory for the north it allowed Lincoln to pass the proclamation of emancipation which had been resting in a drawer for a while already. Lincoln had been advised to wait for a victory to pass the proclamation as anything else would have appeared like a measure of despair in the face of defeat. This proclamation (as mentioned before) made it practically impossible for a European power to recognize and support the south which left the south with the only chance of breaching the northern morale and the will to fight (a morale that turned out to be much stronger during the huge bloodshed in 1864 than many had expected).
Antietam is very suitable for "what if" scenarios in both directions.
If the south had won a distinct victory here it might in fact have resulted in recognition for the south by England and France which might have made it possible for the war to be won militarily rather than by just holding out with the hope that the morale of the north breaks first. If England had joined the war on the side of the south there would have been the superior British navy to lift the blockade and also the North would have had to fight a two front war along the south as well as the Canadian border.
The other direction of "what if" scenarios would be what if McClellan had been more determined at Antietam. I don't think there has been another time in the war when there was an army so "ready to be captured" as the army of Northern Virginia was with the Potomac in its back at Antietam. Had McClellan sent Porter's corps and all reserves in he probably would have been able to capture most of Lee's army which lacked much of a way of retreat (just one ford over the broad river). The destruction of the army of northern virginia (and a possible capture of commanders such as Lee, Jackson, and Longstreet) would have all but opened up the entire eastern theatre of the war for the North. A total federal victory at Antietam might have cut the war short by two years or even more, spared a lot of destruction and loss of life and perhaps it would have even limited the degree of the "Lost Cause" legend.
Hmmm, yes I get that Gettysburg was not that symbolic, but I do believe that, with much of the north tired of war, that Gettysburg would probably be a hammer bloq, and Northerners would likely demand for peace, and if Lincoln refused, he would likely be impeached for his refusal, because if the will of the people is ignored, it makes him a dictator in a way, and the congress would impeach him for it.
But had Lee won Gettysburg, then Britain and France would have likely recognized them, because they were leaning towards doing that by 1863. With 2 world powers against them, America would likely be defeated.
If Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation, then it would be seen as desperation.
Russia actually lost to Germany in World War I, because Czar Nicholas II insisted on taking control of the troops himself in 1915, and the German army outfought a larger Russian army, and the Czar's poor leadership caused more casualties, so it was a combination of losses, military defeats, and their monarch's incompetence, which combined, ended Russia's involvement.
-
Stalingrad was the second largest in WWII, and was the bloodiest day in human history, more then the entire western front combined.
The battle of Stalingrad lasted for months though. The casualties included many prisoners (though many of them would die). The bloodiest single day in human history was not part of the battle of Stalingrad. The bloodiest day in European history (I think there may be an even bloodier day in Chinese history, but I'm not quite sure) was probably the 1st of July 1916, the first day of the battle of the Somme during WW1. British losses alone on that day ammounted to more than 57 000 men almost 20 000 of whom were dead rather than wounded (many of the wounded would later die or be disabled for life) or captured. French casualties are estimated to have been about 7000 and Terman losses about 10 000 that day. So it would ammount to about 74 000 people being killed or maimed or captured on a single day.
Sorry. I didn't know it was more then a single day, but when I said bloody, I meant wounded and killed.
-
I came up with another alternate history, and this one is much darker, German victories in the Battle of Britain, Stalingrad, and Moscow. I am NOT a nazi for doing this, just another possible timeline.
1940
14th September, the Lufwaffe(Germany's airforce) wins the Battle of Britain. First bombing the factories, airfields and bases, next taking on the fighters until there were no fighters left, all over the course of six weeks.
15th September, German paratroopers land in southern England from the air. The Homeguard are no match for these elite troops, and the port of Dover is captured.
16th September, 100,000 German soldiers and 3,500 Panzer tanks cross the English channel. They land in three waves on a wide front, and before the British can react, they secure a beach-head.
25th September- The British army fails to launch a successful counterattack, due to a lack of artillery, tanks, and harrasment from the Lufwaffe. Germans secure much of southern England.
1st October, London is bombed by over a 1,000 planes, Winston Churchill is killed in the raid.
5th October, The royal family is evacuated to Canada, the government makes a desperate plea to the United States for assistance, despite civilian sympathy, they refuse to get involved.
10th October, German troops march into London, the last beacon of freedom in Europe is extinguished, Germany reigns supreme.
November, With England defeated, Germany decides to focus on the last remaining neutral countries in Europe, Spain, Switzerland, Sweden, Greece, and Yugoslavia. Ireland is given control of Northern Ireland, and Japan invades Burma, Malaya, Singapore, and India.
10th November, Germany issues an ultimatum to Europe's remaining countries, either join in an alliance, or be invaded. Greece, Sweden, and Switzerland stand firm, while Hungary, Slovakia, Bulgaria, Romania, and Spain join Germany.
15th November, backed by Germany and Italy, Spain invades Portugal, while Germany invades Yugoslavia and Sweden, and Italy invades Greece.
13th December, Lisbon and Athens fall to German and Italian invaders, and Germany declares World War II at an end. By this time, Japan has conquered Australia and India, and have defeated China, the last remaining threat in Eurasia is the Soviet Union.
1941
14th December 1940-April 21st, 1941 Germany and the other Axis powers plan the invasion of the Soviet Union, and Japan is convinced by Germany to not attack Pearl Harbor.
22nd April, Germany begins the invasion of the Soviet Union, and quickly takes Poland, the Baltics, and the Ukraine. Finland, out of revenge, declares war on Russia and invades from the north.
23rd April, Japan follows Germany's lead and smashes into Russia.
16th May, Japanese troops destroy the Trans-Siberian railway and destroy Russian factories.
22nd August- Germans complete the conquest of Stalingrad and begin amassing their forces to attack Moscow.
13th October, German-led troops are closing in on the suburbs of Moscow, the Lufwaffe land paratroopers in Moscow.
15th October, Germany attacks Moscow, and Japan completes the conquest of the Eastern Soviet Union.
17th November, Stalin commits suicide just as the Germans march to the Kremlin. The Kremlin is captured, Germany declares victory over Russia, and the last pockets of the Red Army flee to Perm to make a final stand.
5th December, the Germans destroy Perm with a massive bombing raid, most of the remainder of the Red Army is killed, the survivors are hunted down by the SS.
6th December, Germany declares victory, and the war with the Soviet Union officially ends, Germany, Italy, and Japan carve up Eurasia. Italy takes Africa, Japan southern Asia, and Germany Europe and the Soviet Union, the middle east is split between them.
7th December- Tensions begin to rise between America and the Axis, widespread anti-Americanism spreads through Eurasia, Americans call for a non-aggression pact with the Axis.
In this timeline, World War II lasted from September 1st, 1939-December 7th, 1941.
10th, the Berlin-Washington treaty is signed, in it, the Axis agree to leave the Americas alone, tensions fall, peace is restored, but how long will it last?
-
^ That alternate scenario however is based on fictional events which would start much earlier since it is assuming more tanks, and probably longer range planes than Germany (mercifully) had in fall 1940. German shipping space too would not have done to bring 3500 tanks across the channel on a single day. Even the D-day landings brought significantly less than 1000 tanks across the channel on one day. So the assumption must include a much stronger (and more visible) degree of buildup of arms (which likely would provoke similar reactions from other countries) prior to fall 1940.
-
^ That alternate scenario however is based on fictional events which would start much earlier since it is assuming more tanks, and probably longer range planes than Germany (mercifully) had in fall 1940. German shipping space too would not have done to bring 3500 tanks across the channel on a single day. Even the D-day landings brought significantly less than 1000 tanks across the channel on one day. So the assumption must include a much stronger (and more visible) degree of buildup of arms (which likely would provoke similar reactions from other countries) prior to fall 1940.
Okay. thanks for telling me that Malte.
-
^ You can also check out some of the books by Peter Tsouras. He wrote Disaster at D-Day and Third Reich Victorious. I have never read the later, but the former was great, although a little overwhelming at times.
In the book, as well as in actuality, the invasion was off to a bad start. Allied level bombers completely miss their target, and the airborne assaults become scattered and disorganized. However, the Allies do manage to land.
However, in the fictional book, the German command reacted much more quickly, and a division of Panzer IVs overrun the Americas at Omaha Beach. The British and the Canadians are soon overwhelmed and driven back into the ocean.
The book stops short of proclaiming a German victory in WWII, and it's easy to see why. The Soviets were advancing on the Eastern Front, and the Western Allies were still advancing, albeit slowly, through Italy. This is not to say that Germany would still lost, but it presents too many possibilities for me or Tsouras to draw a definite conclusion.
The characters and dialogue are very realistic, and the descriptions are vivid and sometimes very graphic. The pages include various maps and pictures, but still, sometimes, the information is overwhelming. I eventually lost track of the divisions and locations of the troops. Still, it was a very good read.
-
The genre of Alternate History is something that only in the last few years I've found interesting. (I guess you first need to have a good understanding of regular history before you can appreciate any alternate versions. :lol: )
Although there are some books I'm very interested in reading someday, I simply haven't had the time to even get access to them, let alone actually read them. However, I do know what exactly I would like to read, if I ever get the chance. There are two series of books, both written by Harry Turtledove (whom others have mentioned earlier in this topic).
One series is a "What if the South had won the Civil War?" The starting point is interesting in that it shows how one minor incident can have massive consequences. In 1862, (I forget the name of the battle) a Confederate messenger accidentally dropped a message with battle plans that was meant for General Robert Lee. In actual history, a Union soldier found the message, putting the Confederate troops at a disadvantage. In this series, a Confederate soldier finds the message, preventing those plans from falling into enemy hands and allowing the Confederates to win an overwhelming victory in the battle that soon followed. I won't say what happens from here, but I will say that the entire series ends with the end of WWII.
The other series is a little more out there with "What if a worldwide alien invasion had happened right in the middle of WWII?" These aren't the stereotypical aliens, but rather more like humanoid lizards. (Apparently, their world never had a K/T extinction event like ours did.) It's an interesting concept: the worst of enemies ever in history having no choice but to join forces to fight off an even greater threat. (Personally, I find this series more interesting than the other because there's a bit of science fiction thrown in as well.)
One more thing. A few days ago, I stumbled across something interesting:
Balkanized North America (http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/misc/balkanus.htm)
A map and simple Chronology to show one possible way the continent of North America could have been fragmented into many different countries, rather than just the United States, Canada, and Mexico. Unlikely, yes, but still an interesting concept.
-
I think I've heard of that series Chronicler... well both series. Turtledove is good from what I know, just haven't read him myself. :)
Speaking of alternate history, I tried out a battle game using my models for the Pacific War. :yes I recently picked up a rules book the company that makes the models wrote, and I tried my own version of the Battle of the Eastern Solomons today in commemoration of the 70th anniversary.
It was... mostly accurate, with some differences. The attack on the Ryujo was pretty similar. Her two CAP fighters were useless, though the Ryujo managed to down one of the American dive bombers, which didn't happen in reality. Still, 29 of them made it through, and I scored 2 bomb hits (3-4 were scored in reality from 30 dropped). One bomb hit wasn't worth much, but the second started some bad fires in the hanger deck. I never got a chance to roll damage control for Ryujo, because the torpedo planes swooped in next. Heavy cruiser Tone shot down one, but the rest launched and one scored (pretty much what happened except they took no losses), ripping open Ryujo's side enough to sink her then and there.
The Japanese attack on the Enterprise group was... lively and pretty exciting. The Americans had a heavy CAP of 54, and I vectored 20 to deal with the 10 Zeroes, and 25 to deal with the 20 Vals attacking Enterprise, as well as 9 to handle the 7 Vals attacking North Carolina.
As it turned out, the North Carolina needed NO help whatsoever. Her AA was just so tremendous that she shot down or dispersed everything heading toward her. That ship is such a beast lol. The CAP wasn't fully able to stop the Vals, nor was the AA screen around Enterprise. I think 8 out of the 20 broke through, the rest were shot down or dispersed. Two bomb hits were scored on the Big E, one of not much consequence, and the other knocked our her AA fire control, so THAT was a pretty bad hit.
The rest of the Vals attacked the cruiser Atlanta (having been dispersed from other attacks) and scored on bomb hit on one of her turrets. It was eerie though how many Japanese planes were shot down in the attack. I shot down 5 Zeroes, and in real life, 6 were shot down. I destroyed 16 Vals, and in the real battle 19 were shot down. So you can see the numbers came pretty darn close to the real thing... which I found just freaky!
I rolled damage control for Enterprise, but the crew ironically failed to restored AA fire control, SO... because of that, her Task Force withdrew from the battle, as a carrier without AA is a liability at that point.
My final attack I played out was the Saratoga's torpedo planes on Abe's Vanguard Force. It pretty much went exactly like the real thing did lol. The torpedo planes all launched, but I scored no hits on the big battleships I was going for... for which I blame ridiculously low rolls on my d20 which made me want to kill it... but oh well. XD I was quite into the scenario by that point, and was hoping to change history and take out or at least damage either the Hiei or the Kirishima... but I guess it wasn't meant to be. :p
So while the outcome of the battle wasn't that much different, I found it creepy how close I was able to replicate Japanese losses without even aiming for that. I didn't even notice until after I did the final tally was I like wow! :wow I'll be looking forward to trying this again for Cape Esperance and Santa Cruz in October. :yes