Just like how gunpowder was discovered in China by alchemists seeking the elixir of life, say it happened centuries earlier in Rome. What I am wondering is if canons were even possible to build with the limited material technology at the time. Would it be seen as useful otherwise?
After leading the USA to victory in the Revolutionary War, what if he had died within months of returning home to Mount Vernon?
How would this have affected the early days of the new United States?
I've heard it said that the Constitutional Convention wrote the role of President with George Washington in mind; is this true, and if so, how would the early federal government have been set up instead (especially considering the failure of the Articles of Confederation)?
I'm talking about Japan invade Siberia and manages to land a massive force of a million men in Siberia and just takes all of Alaska and tries to invade USA from there
Achtung! Achtung!
I just launched Dispatches 1940 on itch.io!
A historically accurate text-based World War II simulator. For free and playable on your browser. Made to really bring to the life the points contested by historians and can explore alternate histories. Brings in a logistical triangle to manage and influence your management of the war and asks would you have pushed into Dunkirk? Delayed Barbarossa? Rebuilt your factories out east?
Previously worked in the games industry but I’ve never actually finished a game myself. This started with long hypothetical conversations with my dad about the war so it would just be lovely to hear someone has enjoyed it and let me know what your thoughts were and if there would be any other alternate histories you would want to explore
I will be waiting with anticipation
What if a huge network of spies and communist did exist in America and he exposed them all? What happens
I have yet to ever receive an in depth answer to this question so hopefully someone can provide an adequate response with sources here.
The main reason the east and west allied was out of strategic necessity after both sides were dragged into the war. Specifically the west was invaded before the east. However, given the ideological differences and apparent disdain for the east among many western leaders. Would a western intervention have ever occurred if Nazi Germany invaded the USSR before turning to the West? And if not, would this had resulted in the same defeat, an armistice, or possibly total victory in the east for Germany?
Of course one must account for the invasion of Poland and the Polish Guarantee but given the west's response in real history, or the lack there of, I suspect this is a non-issue in this scenario but I'm open to hear what you all think.
so they have their present land but decided to not conqure britiannia. so that means less people and soldiers to garrison and fortify the island and the native britons aren't affwcted by the roman military.
if they didn't would they last a bit longer and would a more celtic influence be all over the britiah isles?
What if Bering Strait didn't exist?
Imagine if Asia and America were more connected to each other, more land for both and just separated by a river that you can cross
Humanity wouldn't depend on Ice Age to cross. Boats would still be needed, but it would be way easier than Bering Strait
How would this affect climate and societies?
Yes be realistic
The shock would be real and all netwroks and system loses for sudden changes and etc
How would this affect the timeline and relations with the soviet union?
Author's note: In the original version of the post, I got Saigon (South Vietnam's capital city) confused with Hanoi (North Vietnam's capital city) so consider this a do-over.
Suppose in a parallel universe, following the Tet Offensive, the Vietnam War goes NUCLEAR: enraged so much at the outcome of the Tet Offensive, President Lyndon B. Johnson suddenly decides to go nuclear on North Vietnam and orders a nuke launched at Hanoi, North Vietnam.
Would this result in mutually assured destruction (MAD)?
Just hypothetically, say we naturally release flammable piss. How would this change warfare? Torture? Industrial innovation? Even disrespect, imagine winning over an opponent in battle and lighting them on fire with your piss.
This is probably ASB, but how might European history have played out if the Eastern Roman Empire had somehow fallen before the Western Roman Empire?
Hey guys, my son has a middle school project about alternative history. His topic is “What If the Roman Empire Never Fell”. Wondering if anybody has some good resources (primarily any media) that we can use as a reference! Thank you
Inspired by this post on a different sub.
The objective is to have the State of Palestine be annexed by one of the following countries by 2006:
The annexing country must formally incorporate Palestine into its territory rather than merely occupying it, establishing a protectorate, or exercising informal influence over it.
Rules / Questions to Solve
1. No simple conquest: Your scenario cannot simply have the chosen country invade Palestine, defeat everyone in its way, and declare the territory annexed. Military events can be part of the scenario, but annexation must have a broader political and diplomatic explanation.
2. Palestinian acceptance matters: Explain why Palestinian political leaders and a meaningful portion of the Palestinian population would accept—or actively seek—incorporation into the United States, Turkey, or Saudi Arabia instead of pursuing an independent Palestinian state.
3. Explain Israel’s response: Why does Israel accept, tolerate, or fail to prevent the annexation? If Israel relinquishes territory it controls or claims, explain what circumstances make that possible.
4. Deal with Gaza and the West Bank: Explain what happens to both territories and how the annexing country handles their geographic separation. You cannot simply treat Palestine as one contiguous piece of territory.
5. Deal with East Jerusalem: Explain the status of East Jerusalem and the holy sites. Does it become part of the annexed territory? Remain under Israeli sovereignty? Receive some special international or autonomous status?
6. Explain the response of neighboring states.
At minimum, consider Jordan and Egypt. Depending on your scenario, Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, and other regional governments may also have important reactions.
7. Explain the international response: How do the United Nations, major powers, and other Arab and Muslim-majority states respond? What happens to existing international recognition of Palestinian sovereignty or self-determination?
8. Explain Palestine’s new political status: What does annexation actually mean for Palestinians? Do they receive citizenship in the annexing country? Is Palestine organized as an autonomous region, province, state, territory, or some other administrative unit? What political and civil rights do its inhabitants receive?
8. Account for the annexing country’s domestic politics: Explain why the government and population of the United States, Turkey, or Saudi Arabia would be willing to take responsibility for Palestine and its population. Annexation must make sense from both sides.
9. The scenario must occur by 2006: The relevant point of divergence and annexation must take place no later than 2006, in accordance with the subreddit’s rule against scenarios requiring changes to events from the past twenty years.
Country-Specific Questions:
1. If you choose the United States: What constitutional status does Palestine receive? Is it an unincorporated or incorporated territory? What citizenship rights do Palestinians receive?
2. If you choose Turkey: How does modern Turkey justify incorporating territory formerly governed by the Ottoman Empire without simply reviving Ottoman imperial claims? How does annexation interact with Turkish secularism, nationalism, and domestic politics?
3. If you choose Saudi Arabia: How does Saudi Arabia administer Palestinian territory despite having no land border with it? How does the arrangement affect the Saudi monarchy’s relationship with Jordan, particularly regarding Jerusalem and the Islamic holy sites?
4. If you choose Iraq: Explain why an Iraqi government seeks the formal incorporation of Palestine rather than supporting the creation of an independent Palestinian state. How does Iraq overcome the fact that it shares no border with either the West Bank or Gaza? What relationship does Iraq establish with Jordan to make the arrangement geographically and logistically workable? Your scenario must also address Iraq’s domestic political situation. If the annexation occurs under the Iraqi monarchy, the Ba’athist governments, Saddam Hussein, or an alternate Iraqi regime, explain why that government is capable of administering Palestine and why Palestinians would accept Iraqi sovereignty. Finally, explain how Iraqi annexation affects relations with Israel, Jordan, Egypt, Syria, Saudi Arabia, and other Arab states. In particular, why does the arrangement not simply trigger another regional war?
Bonus Challenges:
The goal isn’t merely to get another country’s flag flying over Palestine. The challenge is to construct a plausible alternate-history chain of events explaining why Palestinians, the annexing country, Israel, and the international community end up accepting—or at least tolerating—the arrangement.