NationStates Jolt Archive

With all the "What if ____ did/didn't ____?" threads, I wonder what the NSGers think is the most interesting alternate history.

Poll incoming.

With all the "What if ____ did/didn't ____?" threads, I wonder what the NSGers think is the most interesting alternate history.

Poll incoming.

I should probably wait for the poll, but Turtledove's Alternative Civil War series is freakin' fantastic. I love his World War stuff, but the believability of the Civil War (Great War: American Front, and the many sequels) series puts it ahead for me.

The best two I have come across are;

What if the Greeks had lost at Salamis?

and

What if Minoan civilization had not fallen?

Of couse, both simpyl go for the biggy in western civilisation; classical culture, philosophy, architecture and politics, all of which are a result of hellenism.

Given your poll options, I'm going with Germany not invading Russia. If Germany had managed to say, conquer England, and eliminate it as a springboard for American invasion, and do away with effective resistance in the middle-east, you wouldn't see a 'need' for the German invasion of Russia. A very different 20th century indeed.

Mine is Either William Marshal had beenbeaten at Lincoln leading to the Capets on the Throne of England or if Octavian lost at actium

I should probably wait for the poll, but Turtledove's Alternative Civil War series is freakin' fantastic. I love his World War stuff, but the believability of the Civil War (Great War: American Front, and the many sequels) series puts it ahead for me.

Hear Hear! The last book of that series I believe comes out in late July. Title is In at the Death. I wonder which city will be nuked first.

Given your poll options, I'm going with Germany not invading Russia. If Germany had managed to say, conquer England, and eliminate it as a springboard for American invasion, and do away with effective resistance in the middle-east, you wouldn't see a 'need' for the German invasion of Russia. A very different 20th century indeed.

Which is a very unlikely scenario indeed. Nazi ideology was all about expansion into the East. The Third Reich did everything within its power to coexist peacefully with Western Europe.

i have often been intrigued as to what might have become of christianity had it not been officially endorsed by rome. the others interest me less.

I go back further than all of these, what if the dinosaurs never went extinct?

or, what if another religion replaced Christianity as top dog around the world? Nothing against Christianity, but with all the influences it has, I'd like to see what happened if all of those never happened.

EDIT:Infinite revolution kind of got what I was going for. Sorry I didn't see that.

THe Aztecs having ocean going Ships

or, what if another religion replaced Christianity as top dog around the world? Nothing against Christianity, but with all the influences it has, I'd like to see what happened if all of those never happened.

EDIT:Infinite revolution kind of got what I was going for. Sorry I didn't see that.

Apollonianism! :D

The one where Lincoln dodged the bullet and beat the shit out of Booth.

Its not listed, but...

Russia with a long series of competent leaders.
Inserting that at just about any point in history can produce some scary results, at least if you happen to be British.

I don't know how, but the Roman Empire never collapses.

(OMG, there's a whole thread on that)

I have a fondness for How Few Remain and the following myself. It would indeed be interesting to see how a lack of Christianity would have changed the world though.

there is an AH book where the Black Plague wipes out 99% of Europe's population, leaving the continent open to Muslim and Hindu colonization (and destroying most of Christianity in the process).

TBH, I feel that Turtledove's are fundamentally flawed. Lincoln was a dead man. It doesn't matter who won, the fact remains that, given the state the country was in, someone from the North would've killed him for losing the war. And getting a manumission amendment passed would never have happened. The Confederate States would have never passed such an amendment, even if British and French helped was riding on it. And even still, prevailing Southern politics regarding States' Rights included nullification, so even if that bill had passed, you'd either see several states seceding or nullifying the amendment. And the North not having any military sense? Come on, people; when you have a hostile nation bordering you, you don't let up on your military defenses (and the gatling guns don't count; Custard didn't know what the hell to do with them and he hated Roosevelt. I also find the idea of Mexico selling two of its states (or whatever they were called back then) preposterous. The Emperor of Mexico was French, and France was against slavery, so would never have helped its extension. His stories also do not follow the proper plot structure. The only thing he's done right, as far as I'm concerned, was the attitude towards the Mormons.

I don't know how he could've gotten the political situation so mixed up after Guns of the South. Time travel aside, that one was much more believable (minus Forrest's comment on how he would've gone to war to stop the western states from seceding; that would be him committing treason in the eyes of the South). I can definitely see the US invading Canada after having its Southern states leave (and the bit about Russia being so frightened as to sell Alaska is a bit funny to me).

However, all issues aside, I still find his books entertaining. I am currently trying to find American Empire: Blood and Iron, but I never can! In fact, no one seems to ever have many of the American Empire trilogy. I can't start Settling Accounts until I know what goes on in-between.

there is an AH book where the Black Plague wipes out 99% of Europe's population, leaving the continent open to Muslim and Hindu colonization (and destroying most of Christianity in the process).

TBH, I feel that Turtledove's are fundamentally flawed. Lincoln was a dead man. It doesn't matter who won, the fact remains that, given the state the country was in, someone from the North would've killed him for losing the war. And getting a manumission amendment passed would never have happened. The Confederate States would have never passed such an amendment, even if British and French helped was riding on it. And even still, prevailing Southern politics regarding States' Rights included nullification, so even if that bill had passed, you'd either see several states seceding or nullifying the amendment. And the North not having any military sense? Come on, people; when you have a hostile nation bordering you, you don't let up on your military defenses (and the gatling guns don't count; Custard didn't know what the hell to do with them and he hated Roosevelt. I also find the idea of Mexico selling two of its states (or whatever they were called back then) preposterous. The Emperor of Mexico was French, and France was against slavery, so would never have helped its extension. His stories also do not follow the proper plot structure. The only thing he's done right, as far as I'm concerned, was the attitude towards the Mormons.

I don't know how he could've gotten the political situation so mixed up after Guns of the South. Time travel aside, that one was much more believable (minus Forrest's comment on how he would've gone to war to stop the western states from seceding; that would be him committing treason in the eyes of the South). I can definitely see the US invading Canada after having its Southern states leave (and the bit about Russia being so frightened as to sell Alaska is a bit funny to me).

However, all issues aside, I still find his books entertaining. I am currently trying to find American Empire: Blood and Iron, but I never can! In fact, no one seems to ever have many of the American Empire trilogy. I can't start Settling Accounts until I know what goes on in-between.

The 1st Book you're referring to is 'The Years of Rice and Salt' by Kim Stanley Robinson (the same guy who did the whole Red Mars, Green Mars, Blue Mars dealy). Good book, although in my opinion a little dry and long-winded in parts. Although Hinduism plays a much smaller part through most of it, while Confuscianism, and China in general plays a huge part.

As to Turtledove? I find as long as his points are at least plausable, his story sense seems to pull it all together. As to plot structure, I'm not so sure what you're getting at. He definitely has his own storytelling style which becomes readily apparent after reading several of his books. At any rate, I like his use of individual soldiers/statesmen/revolutionaries from different parts of any conflict help to envisualize the grand scope of the conflicts he portrays. I always eagerly anticipate the next.

Uh, we live in a timeline were Constantine didn't chose Christianity as the state religion, all he did was make it legal it was the next Emperor that made it the state religion.

The 1st Book you're referring to is 'The Years of Rice and Salt' by Kim Stanley Robinson (the same guy who did the whole Red Mars, Green Mars, Blue Mars dealy). Good book, although in my opinion a little dry and long-winded in parts. Although Hinduism plays a much smaller part through most of it, while Confuscianism, and China in general plays a huge part.

Ah, that's it. Thank you.

As to plot structure, I'm not so sure what you're getting at.

In the Anglo-Saxon model of creative writing, the plot follows a structure similar to the of a pyramid. First there is Act 1, the introduction, where all the main characters are introduced. Then an event happens which drives the plot into action and begins Act 2. Act 2 is where everything happens and is the most important part of the story. Either the situation will degrade and the protagonist will find himself in a progressively worse situation or the the obstacles will be overcome and the hero proceeds unimpeded. Then a turning point is reached where the situation is totally reversed. In the original Star Wars, this turning point is when the Falcon enters the remains of Alderaan and is subsequently captured by the Death Star (or, as my teacher used, the Wizard of Oz when Dorothy initially meets the Wizard). The story continues to a point where a final event happens which drives the plot to its climax and ultimately Act 3, which deals with the plot's resolution and the immediate after effects.

It is in Act 2 that Turtledove fails the most, to my perspective. In the Great War Trilogy, the USA and CSA make immediate gains into each other's territory where the war hits the same stalemate as it did IRL. To follow a proper format, and keep in line with how the outcome of the book needed to be, the USA should have been on the defense at the start and making no gains in Canada. While this may be unrealistic in a war, this is a book of fiction, and thus should be treated as one before all else.

I personally, chose other.

"If the vikings had spread their influence across the world".

Vikings are the most badass people to have ever lived, therefore if we were all vikings, our planet would be the most badass to have ever existed.

"We're born, we learn to fight, we fight, we die fighting, we go to vallhalla, we fight in preparation of the armageddon, then we fight in the armageddon."

"What then?"

"More fighting."

I'm a personal fan of "What if Harry Turtledove was brutally murdered by his English teacher in Eighth Grade?"

I'm actually formulating a rather complex alternatehistory for a novella I'm writing for a class project. Here are the elements:

- Hitler survives Berlin 1945, escapes to South America, has children who strike back at the US and Europe

- JFK is not assassinated

- The USSR does not weaken or fall

- The US and Soviet Union form an alliance

...I still have some kinks...

In the Anglo-Saxon model of creative writing, the plot follows a structure similar to the of a pyramid. First there is Act 1, the introduction, where all the main characters are introduced. Then an event happens which drives the plot into action and begins Act 2. Act 2 is where everything happens and is the most important part of the story. Either the situation will degrade and the protagonist will find himself in a progressively worse situation or the the obstacles will be overcome and the hero proceeds unimpeded. Then a turning point is reached where the situation is totally reversed. In the original Star Wars, this turning point is when the Falcon enters the remains of Alderaan and is subsequently captured by the Death Star (or, as my teacher used, the Wizard of Oz when Dorothy initially meets the Wizard). The story continues to a point where a final event happens which drives the plot to its climax and ultimately Act 3, which deals with the plot's resolution and the immediate after effects.

It is in Act 2 that Turtledove fails the most, to my perspective. In the Great War Trilogy, the USA and CSA make immediate gains into each other's territory where the war hits the same stalemate as it did IRL. To follow a proper format, and keep in line with how the outcome of the book needed to be, the USA should have been on the defense at the start and making no gains in Canada. While this may be unrealistic in a war, this is a book of fiction, and thus should be treated as one before all else.

No offense, but I think you missed the 'creative' part in creative writing. Tolkein didn't exactly follow the traditional model either, and its a remarkably good story. Turtledove's books, at least the civil war series at any rate, follows the twists and turns of war and its impact on the Americas. Plot structure need not apply. What he's done is decided what way the war is going to go, and then illustrates it with the actions and reactions of his characters, rather than decide that he has to change the flow of the war for some pre-determined plot structure.

Also, bear in mind that this is a series of books, rather than a stand-alone story. For most of the readers, these characters are already well-known. He tends to use a lot of foreshadowing, combined with some creative anachronism so that the reader gets an idea where things are going. He still throws some surprises at you though.

The plot-driven story is just one method of story telling, and not all stories follow that particular model. If the author's intent is to try to create a realistic-seeming alternative war, one has to assume that that author is going to use real-world precedent combined with a little imagination to drive the story, rather than a formula.

Awww, no all of the above option?:(

I didn't really care for any of the Turtledove I read. The novelty of 'what if' wears off after awhile and his writing style just didn't do it for me. Still decent stories and concept, though.

For a bit of far-flung AH, try Naomi Novik's 'Temeraire'. Napoleon VS England? WITH DRAGONS. Bam. I just blew your mind... ;) Joking aside, I've been enjoying the hell out of this little series. Aerial warfare at Trafalgar and the Nile? Yeah.

My favorite What If scenario? Mmm... I like this game, so...

How about Baldwin the Leper surviving to ripe old age, ruling wisely, and making peace with Saladin and the Fatimid line? What would the modern Middle East be like with an independent crusader state occupying it?

If we're stretching, how about a nasty incident involving Britain and the US in, let's say '36? A big incident. Take your pick, what's important in our scenario is that American sentiment swings in favor of Nazi Germany. Hitler courts this swing and the US refuses material support to the allies, with nothing even slightly resembling Lend Lease comes into play. The Pacific aside, if America had stayed completely out of it in Europe and North Africa, could the Brits have stayed afloat long enough for the Soviets to gear up?

Or we could go for the crop: What if the Khan had lived or issued his own 'what if' orders, and the Horde had rampaged into Europe?

No offense, but I think you missed the 'creative' part in creative writing. Tolkein didn't exactly follow the traditional model either, and its a remarkably good story. Turtledove's books, at least the civil war series at any rate, follows the twists and turns of war and its impact on the Americas. Plot structure need not apply. What he's done is decided what way the war is going to go, and then illustrates it with the actions and reactions of his characters, rather than decide that he has to change the flow of the war for some pre-determined plot structure.

Also, bear in mind that this is a series of books, rather than a stand-alone story. For most of the readers, these characters are already well-known. He tends to use a lot of foreshadowing, combined with some creative anachronism so that the reader gets an idea where things are going. He still throws some surprises at you though.

The plot-driven story is just one method of story telling, and not all stories follow that particular model. If the author's intent is to try to create a realistic-seeming alternative war, one has to assume that that author is going to use real-world precedent combined with a little imagination to drive the story, rather than a formula.

Judging by the movies (which I freely admit may have been altered), Tolkein did indeed follow the model. The Fellowship of the Ring ended with the breaking of the Fellowship, the death of Gandalf, and the capture of Merry and Pippen. The Two Towers initially continues the downward tread, with the king at first being controlled, then having no interest in fighting a full scale war. The Battle of Helm's Deep is the turning point, after which the situation starts improving (though naturally, there are still obstacles in the way, as there must be) - Aragorn goes to claim his rightful status as king of Gondor, Saron's forces are routed, then finally the ring itself is destroyed, leading to Jackson's extended Act 3.

The whole point of the model is to keep the reader's interest in the book. While I was reading How Few Remain, I found myself loosing said interest. Things improved a little The Great War trilogy, but I still had to force myself to read. Judging by some of the reviews I've read, the American Empire trilogy isn't that good, and Turtledove made it only to fill in the interwar years.

What if time travel hadn't been invented in 2105?

The most interesting to me would be: What would have happened if, when America's southern states decided to secede in 1860-61, Abraham Lincoln had just said, "Okay, bye; don't let the door hit you on the way out." Seriously--why couldn't the USA and the CSA have coexisted? We could have avoided the Civil War.

I voted for Spain failing to take the New World on the poll...the possibilities there are endless. Who would come to dominate? The Portugese? The British? The French? Would any European power have maintained it's hold on such a large area they way the Spanish did? Interesting question.

I also like...

...what if the Persians had swamped the garrison at Thermopylae in less than a day?

...what if Alexander the Great had lived to the age of 60?

...what if Christianity had failed to gain adherents and faded into obscurity around 100 AD?

...what if the Jin and Song dynasties had instead been one dynasty, presenting the Mongols with the prospects of fighting a (relatively) united China?

...what if, instead of pushing south and sacking Baghdad in the 1250's, the Mongols had instead continued pushing west into Europe as they had in the 1240's?

...what if the Vikings had made a concentrated effort to expand their colonies in North America?

...what if the Crusader states had taken up Ghazan Khan's offer of alliance against the Egyptian Mamluks?

...what if Matthias had had a direct heir, preventing the rise of Ferdinand II, and potentially averting the Thirty Years' War?

...what if Lee had listened to Longstreet, averting the second two days of Gettysburg and threatening D.C.?

...what if the Ottoman Empire had not signed a treaty with Germany, and remained neutral throughout World War I?





...history is fun, especially fake history! :p

The PAC is defeated by the EU at the battle of Suez effectivley, in 2142 battlefield music

if there had never BEEN a greek, roman, or similar empire!

instead minoen crete had come to dominate the mediterainian and celtic druidism, western europe.

and believe it or not, we would be further ahead tecnologicly by now then we are, but in a much mellower, happier and waaaay more gratifying world.

there would of course never have been a middle ages, nor the kaiser's pogroms nor a hitler.

christianity, if there had come to be such a thing at all, without a roman abuses to drive it to militance, would have settled down harmoniously besides diverse indiginous and other both poly and monothiestic beliefs to their mutual bennifits and everyone else's, much as buddhism did with shintoism in japan.

the details are of course numerous and many.

in brief the age of steam would have started at least a thousand years sooner and lasted 500 years longer and we would be out among the stars by now as responsible citizens of the greater galactic community that is out there waiting for us to grow up.

=^^=
.../\...

How about what if crappy 'reality TV' hadn't been invented?

The Muslims beating the crap out of Martell in 732 could be rather interesting. Nowhere near as strong a church but a much more enlightened Middle Ages, at the end of which stands an Arab colonisation of the Americas.

Alternatively, anything with the Nazis will do all right.

Henry V surving Dysentry to make Joan of Arc some obscure footnote in the pages of history

Actually, did anyone ever read "Fatherland (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fatherland_%28novel%29#The_world_of_Fatherland)"? The world sounds interesting.

what Robert Harris has forgotten is that lil maxim as quoted in Battle of Britian "So don't threaten or dictate to us until you're marching up Whitehall! And even then we won't listen."

what Robert Harris has forgotten is that lil maxim as quoted in Battle of Britian "So don't threaten or dictate to us until you're marching up Whitehall! And even then we won't listen."
Look, that bit of homefront propaganda is probably the last point of attack I would use to try and show why the Nazis couldn't have won that way, but that's not the point.

The interesting thing to me is what society would have been like if the Nazis had won.

Soviet Union vs the Allies and Germany in WWII.

Look, that bit of homefront propaganda is probably the last point of attack I would use to try and show why the Nazis couldn't have won that way, but that's not the point.

The interesting thing to me is what society would have been like if the Nazis had won.

aye it's very intresting

A few thoughts:

What if Hitler never invaded Poland?...

What if somebody actually pushed the button in the Cuban missle crisis?...

What if Japan didn't attack but instead completed its conquer of Asia?...

What would have happened if there was an empire in North America when Columbus came?...

What if The Library of Alexandria wasn't destroyed?...

and...

What would be if there was no argument on the successor of Muhammed??

but The Viking Thing sound more awesome!

TBH, I feel that Turtledove's are fundamentally flawed. Lincoln was a dead man. It doesn't matter who won, the fact remains that, given the state the country was in, someone from the North would've killed him for losing the war.

You are probably right but the thing is though, we'll never know and they do not call it alternate history for nothing.

And getting a manumission amendment passed would never have happened. The Confederate States would have never passed such an amendment, even if British and French helped was riding on it. And even still, prevailing Southern politics regarding States' Rights included nullification, so even if that bill had passed, you'd either see several states seceding or nullifying the amendment.

Not necessarily true. It was only because of Britain and France that they won the 2nd Mexican War. They blockaded the Union and well...you know what happens when that occurs. If the South did not get rid of slavery, it is a very good possibility that France and England would have withdrawn their support of the CSA. That would have left them wide open to the United States.

And the North not having any military sense? Come on, people; when you have a hostile nation bordering you, you don't let up on your military defenses (and the gatling guns don't count; Custard didn't know what the hell to do with them and he hated Roosevelt. I also find the idea of Mexico selling two of its states (or whatever they were called back then) preposterous.

Hence you find alot of these books in the SCIENCE FICTION SECTION!!!!! And besides, how the hell do youknow that it would be preposterous? What do you have to back that up? Be advised that this is also alternate history and that the US is not fully capable of stopping the bill collecting from the European Powers.

The Emperor of Mexico was French, and France was against slavery, so would never have helped its extension. His stories also do not follow the proper plot structure. The only thing he's done right, as far as I'm concerned, was the attitude towards the Mormons.

Jesus God in Heaven. I see you do not understand what it means to look at alternate history. You have to look at it in a totally different light and you must ignore most of what you have learned in History class in order to follow what is going on. The Emperor of Mexico was indeed from France but that does not mean that he will not do what he did. People will do anything for money and Mexico needed the money.

I don't know how he could've gotten the political situation so mixed up after Guns of the South. Time travel aside, that one was much more believable (minus Forrest's comment on how he would've gone to war to stop the western states from seceding; that would be him committing treason in the eyes of the South). I can definitely see the US invading Canada after having its Southern states leave (and the bit about Russia being so frightened as to sell Alaska is a bit funny to me).

You have to think with a clear mind and to remember that 1) this is fiction and 2) you have to back history up and then ignore what actually occured in our own time frame. If you fail to do that then you are not going to enjoy the books.

However, all issues aside, I still find his books entertaining. I am currently trying to find American Empire: Blood and Iron, but I never can! In fact, no one seems to ever have many of the American Empire trilogy. I can't start Settling Accounts until I know what goes on in-between.

Try Barnes and Nobles or Borders Bookstore. If you cannot find it there, have them order it for ya.

The most interesting to me would be: What would have happened if, when America's southern states decided to secede in 1860-61, Abraham Lincoln had just said, "Okay, bye; don't let the door hit you on the way out." Seriously--why couldn't the USA and the CSA have coexisted? We could have avoided the Civil War.

If the South had not fired upon Fort Sumter.....

Soviet Union vs the Allies and Germany in WWII.

That would be my favorite.

If the South had not fired upon Fort Sumter.....

Indeed.

"War of Northern Agression"

...pfft. :rolleyes:

I really don't have a favorite, if someone can make a good story out of the alternate history scenario then at the moment it will be my favorite. Right now I am reading Orson Scott Card's Alvin Maker series. Loving it. :)

Guess.
The British Empire not falling.

Ilaer

My three would be:

What if there was a Confederacy around to side with the Axis in WWII?

What if the Cold War went hot because there were no nuclear deterrents?

What if the Native Americans had the means to repel the Europeans?

With all the "What if ____ did/didn't ____?" threads, I wonder what the NSGers think is the most interesting alternate history.

Poll incoming.

Lots of alts I like better than your poll options, but I understand the poll's limited.

I should probably wait for the poll, but Turtledove's Alternative Civil War series is freakin' fantastic. I love his World War stuff, but the believability of the Civil War (Great War: American Front, and the many sequels) series puts it ahead for me.

I liked Guns of the South better, partly for literary reasons. He's gotten into the evil bog of an infinite series, as seems to be the case with most of his other works...

there is an AH book where the Black Plague wipes out 99% of Europe's population, leaving the continent open to Muslim and Hindu colonization (and destroying most of Christianity in the process).

[QUOTE=Novus-America]I don't know how he could've gotten the political situation so mixed up after Guns of the South. Time travel aside, that one was much more believable (minus Forrest's comment on how he would've gone to war to stop the western states from seceding; that would be him committing treason in the eyes of the South). I can definitely see the US invading Canada after having its Southern states leave (and the bit about Russia being so frightened as to sell Alaska is a bit funny to me).


It looks like you may have mixed up Guns of the South with the Great War Series...


However, all issues aside, I still find his books entertaining. I am currently trying to find American Empire: Blood and Iron, but I never can! In fact, no one seems to ever have many of the American Empire trilogy. I can't start Settling Accounts until I know what goes on in-between.

Indeed you have.

The 1st Book you're referring to is 'The Years of Rice and Salt' by Kim Stanley Robinson (the same guy who did the whole Red Mars, Green Mars, Blue Mars dealy). Good book, although in my opinion a little dry and long-winded in parts. Although Hinduism plays a much smaller part through most of it, while Confuscianism, and China in general plays a huge part.

As to Turtledove? I find as long as his points are at least plausable, his story sense seems to pull it all together. As to plot structure, I'm not so sure what you're getting at. He definitely has his own storytelling style which becomes readily apparent after reading several of his books. At any rate, I like his use of individual soldiers/statesmen/revolutionaries from different parts of any conflict help to envisualize the grand scope of the conflicts he portrays. I always eagerly anticipate the next.

Yep. Years of Rice and Salt was an interesting idea. But it was done with equal tediousness as the Mars books.

I'm a personal fan of "What if Harry Turtledove was brutally murdered by his English teacher in Eighth Grade?"

:D

Another very interseting AH (and my personal fave) is Arnold Toynbee's well formulated essay postulating a longstanding Alexandian empire...

The Hammer and the Cross trilogy, by Harry Harrison.

Dark Ages era England taken over by an awkward alliance of renegade Vikings, escaped slaves and freelance misfits, all led by a ruthless and extremely devious Englishman. Unflinchingly nasty in its portrayal of the Viking age, but I liked it.
Not sure its portrayal of Ivar Ragnarsson as an unhinged sadist is entirely fair, but probably not a million miles from the truth.

I like "Mohammed either is never born or is killed accidentally before becoming the Prophet of Islam."

I like "Mohammed either is never born or is killed accidentally before becoming the Prophet of Islam." Mate, you're unoriginal.

I'd like Germany to have not been led by Hitler and thus not be incredibly racist in WWII. Then we wouldn't have a white guilt complex and so would not have to put up with the Muslim extremists you seem to refer to, in our countries.

Another very interseting AH (and my personal fave) is Arnold Toynbee's well formulated essay postulating a longstanding Alexandian empire...

I've never read the essay, but I believe it was mentioned as an inspiration for S.M. Stirling's background for 'Conquistador'. While that novel doesn't really go into great detail about that Alexandrian world, it gives a pretext for the possiblity of a North America that had yet to be discovered by 'the Old World' by the 1940's, thus allowing some WWII vets and adventurers from 'our world' to slip through a 'gate' and colonize North America all over again...

Not one of Stirling's best, but good.

An interesting one posed by my sister concerns European colonization of the new world sans gunpowder...

An interesting one posed by my sister concerns European colonization of the new world sans gunpowder...

5 more guys would've died.

Gunpowder played little into the conquests; it was mostly the smallpox. And horsemen.


A better one would be the conquests without steel, horses, and/or the smallpox virus.

My three would be:

What if there was a Confederacy around to side with the Axis in WWII?

See Turtledove's Confederate series.

What if the Cold War went hot because there were no nuclear deterrents?

That'll be a good one.

What if the Native Americans had the means to repel the Europeans?

Another good one.

The Hammer and the Cross trilogy, by Harry Harrison.

Very good author. He did a 3 book series on what would happen if the Brits attacked the US during the American Civil War beginning with the Trent Affair. Very good series and I recommend it.

I've never read the essay, but I believe it was mentioned as an inspiration for S.M. Stirling's background for 'Conquistador'. While that novel doesn't really go into great detail about that Alexandrian world, it gives a pretext for the possiblity of a North America that had yet to be discovered by 'the Old World' by the 1940's, thus allowing some WWII vets and adventurers from 'our world' to slip through a 'gate' and colonize North America all over again...

Not one of Stirling's best, but good.

The essay was excellent. I hadn't heard of the Stirling book yet.

What if the Cold War went hot because there were no nuclear deterrents?

That'll be a good one.

Missed that one earlier. Yeah, sounds like one I'd read.

And it reminds me of Resurrection Day, a pretty good one that's based on the Cuban Missile sparking a nuke war.



I just thought of an older one (mid-80s) where a group of viking paganist fleeing the Christians settle the new world, but I can't remember the title and I can't find it on google - anybody know the one?

If Russia had become a democratic Monarchy (similar to Great Britain) in the mid 19th century, instead of boiling over into revolution.

What if there was a Confederacy around to side with the Axis in WWII?

One of the founders of the CSA was Judah P. Benjamin, their Secretary of State, to be exact. He was also Jewish. Hitler would've put them on them top of his shit list, despite their treatment of blacks.

It looks like you may have mixed up Guns of the South with the Great War Series...


If I recall correctly, the states west of the Mississippi and Louisanna, who voted for Forrest, were thinking about spliting off.

If the French Revolution had been crushed. I doubt we would have the democratic welfare states of today, had this happened.

If I recall correctly, the states west of the Mississippi and Louisanna, who voted for Forrest, were thinking about spliting off.

You mixed them up here:

I don't know how he could've gotten the political situation so mixed up after Guns of the South.

Guns of the South is a stand-alone - there is no "after". How Few Remain is the one with the "after" (the Great War/TL-191 series).

If Russia had become a democratic Monarchy (similar to Great Britain) in the mid 19th century, instead of boiling over into revolution.
Interesting enough.;) However, how are you going to pull that off with a noble class raised on the old "Orthodoxy, Autocracy, Nationalism/Populism" mantra from their mothers' milk? That "divine right" mindset's arguably what kept Tsar Nikolai II from doing this OTL; and ultimately shafted the Russian democrats as well as the nobles in the process for it, through the old "guilt by association" bit the liberal princes' antics allowed Lenin to pull off.
For my favorite AH, probably one where the Russo-Japanese War becomes an early World War I. The British move to put Russia in its place after several more (than were already...:rolleyes:) merchant ships are mistaken for Japanese torpedo boats by drunk Russian Black Sea Fleet captains. Fortunately for Russia, the Channel's weather could just allow the fleet back to home waters before the Royal Navy can catch them. That could spell trouble both for the Japanese (running out of men and money fast in Manchurian trench battles) and Russian revolutionaries (less political traction without a Tsushima to discredit the autocracy so obviously) in one stroke.
Imagine: a world without Tsushima,? A world where France tears up the barely year-old Entente Cordiale and supports Russia against Britain and Japan, while Germany/Austria-Hungary/Turkey join Britain (of all countries) against Russia? A world where the US ultimately gets dragged in (like in OTL) after two-odd years of holier-than-thou neutrality, when a crisis over anti-Japanese segregation in San Francisco schools (solved by the Gentleman's Agreement in our timeline) prompts a combined Japanese/British attack on the Philippines, maybe even Pearl Harbor itself; and adds a Canadian Front to the ongoing European and Manchurian Fronts? The possibilities just multiply on and on here, I do say...:D

Guns of the South is a stand-alone - there is no "after". How Few Remain is the one with the "after" (the Great War/TL-191 series).

Oh, that. Guns of the South was written before How Few Remain. That's what I was referring to. I know Guns of the South is a standalone (though I wouldn't mind seeing a sequel).

Oh, that. Guns of the South was written before How Few Remain. That's what I was referring to. I know Guns of the South is a standalone (though I wouldn't mind seeing a sequel).

Then why the "after"?

My personal favorite idea (one that I've had something of a want to actually write) is where the Constitutional Convention fails and the former colonies split into two seperate countries along the north/south line (Maryland and Delware are a toss up). Possibly sets the stage for a North America with several new countries.