What if the White Rajahs of the Brooke dynasty were still in power? Would Sarawak still be a British protectorate or a fully independent state?

PoD: the Emirate of cordoba focused so much more on conquering Asturias & keeping the Franks out of the Pyrenees, and less on consolidating their power in Iberia, to the point where they would conquer Asturias & keep the Franks out of the Pyrenees, arming the Mozarebs in the process, then got overthrown by the Mozarebs.

I think a Mozarabic state, would blend it's cultural and religious identity with the administrative and intellectual legacy of al-Andalus and face challenges, including the need to stabilize its borders, fend off rival powers, and navigate the complex web of alliances and hostilities in the Mediterranean.

Do you think the colonies in the Americas would take much longer to be independent?

Rules: 1. NATO can’t be involved. 2. You are allowed to use a mass casualty event as casus belli for either side to declare war. 3. You can escalate things into WW3 if you feel really gutsy 4. You are not allowed to use chemical weapons (for either side).

The Nineteenth Amendment (Amendment XIX) to the United States Constitution prohibits the United States and its states from denying the right to vote to citizens of the United States on the basis of sex, in effect recognizing the right of women to vote. The amendment was the culmination of a decades-long movement for women's suffrage in the United States, at both the state and national levels, and was part of the worldwide movement towards women's suffrage and part of the wider women's rights movement. The first women's suffrage amendment was introduced in Congress in 1878. However, a suffrage amendment did not pass the House of Representatives until May 21, 1919, which was quickly followed by the Senate, on June 4, 1919. It was then submitted to the states for ratification, achieving the requisite 36 ratifications to secure adoption, and thereby went into effect, on August 18, 1920. The Nineteenth Amendment's adoption was certified on August 26, 1920.

Here’s the challenge: Create a plausible alternate timeline where the 19th Amendment is introduced but isn’t certified and women’s suffrage became a states’ rights issue instead.

this timeline. Assuming the war still happens ofcourse. for those of you who think Rome would take the opportunity to strike the Macedonian empire...

I think something the creator of the YT vid didn't take into consideration is how many Greeks (before they gain independence from the Macedonian empire) would move to Epirus, instead of the colonies, let's say the Pyrrhic war (although still a Roman victory) is so much harder for Rome to win due to Epirus having such a larger and wealthier population, that Rome isn't a threat to the Macedonian empire yet

This is technically two different scenarios, but they’re close enough that I wouldn’t want to make two separate posts. Anyways, the idea is pretty simple: During the Cold War, say 1979 for the United States or 1983 for the USSR, a misunderstanding/computer error results in the launch of a nuclear strike against their geopolitical opposition. However, the leadership of the other side in a split second decision refuses to retaliate with their own nuclear counter-strike. Maybe their thinking could be something like:

The point of mutually assured destruction was to prevent nuclear war, and that has obviously failed. It would be wrong to kill millions of innocent people and doom the world just to stick to a principle that will be irrelevant a day from now.

Or maybe they just don’t believe that a nuclear attack is incoming until it’s too late. At any rate, we now find ourselves in a world where one superpower (either the US or USSR) stands alone having not been nuked to oblivion as their former rival burns, but also presumably with the greatest PR disaster in human history on their hands. How would such a superpower react to this scenario? What would happen to all the refugees from the now fallen block? How would the US and USSR differ in how they would act had they found themselves in this situation?

I also acknowledge that there were more nuclear actors than the two big ones. For the sake of simplicity I will say that they fall in line with the superpowers, or launch a much smaller retaliatory strike should they be attacked where a lot of it can be shot down.

Sorry if this scenario is totally unbelieveable. I’m by no means a Cold War historian.

I have heard that during ww1, 300k Arabs fought for the Ottoman empire, and 50k Arabs fought against it, I also heard that when TE lawrence was trying to persuade arabs to revolt, or when they were revolting, they knew that britain & france had plans on turning much of the Ottoman arab territory into mandates, and were hoping that if they fought more valiantly this would change their minds. But if France & Britain were willing to not do this, and would leave them all alone after ww1(minus Palestine & Lebanon), would more Arabs have fought against the Ottomans instead of with them? 

It’s being a while since i think that but i need to talk about this, like really. The amount of posts which are about things litteraly impossible (e.g. England led by a fascist Mosley allied with Labour) and follow little-to-no logic whatsoever.

It’s annoying because most posts, including a big number of these are more of a « question » (type: what would happen if {…}) and we simply cannot answer or it will at least be complicated due to the poor logic and sense of the « question ».

I mean, guys, even if it’s not r/AskHistorians, do at least some research… We are not talking about individual posts coming one time each week, but often multiple times per week and even per day sometimes. We, at least I, am (are) not here to try to understand the logic of your alt-history. It’s your alt-history, therefore YOU ARE THE ONLY ONE RESPONSIBLE FOR WRITING IT AND THINKING ON IT.

I even believe this Subreddit should be more about developed scenarios, with logical details and following a real logic rather than a low-effort Post competition about which is the most nonsensical and wtf possible. I am not blaming anyone, not even the Mods themselves, but I really don’t like to see this (minority of) Posts.

Otherwise you could ask for some help or i don’t know, but when you post a question « what-if » or a scenario, please stay realistic and respect the rules which explicitely tells people to stay historical.

Cordially.

I am curious, considering the formal division between Orthodoxy & catholicism had not yet fully manifested in England by 1054 & England was not yet part of the schism, and still functionally Orthodox in faith and practice. It was the Norman Conquest that brought an influx of continental bishops loyal to Rome’s reforms. The Christian tradition of Wales developed in even greater isolation than England’s, and in many ways even more clearly fits the idea of Western Orthodoxy

“Comrade Belikov, we are in grave danger from the capitalists. Our collective, our very way of life is at risk.”- A fictionalized Mikhail Gorbachev in Call of Duty: Black Ops Cold War (2020).

This is a rewrite of my previous post about Mao Zedong and Nixon being killed during the latter’s visit to China.

This time, the assailants are Soviet hardliners who are still bitter about the Sino-Soviet Split and perceive Mao’s willingness to let Nixon visit China as a sign Mao and the Chinese had effectively “sold out” to the Capitalist West.

Enraged at both the United States and China, rogue Soviet KGB agents backed by hardliners in the Soviet Union attack Mao and Nixon during the latter’s visit to China as Nixon is touring Beijing. From here, the scenario splits into the following variations: 1. Mao and Nixon are both killed by the KGB hit team. 2. Mao is fatally wounded but Nixon survives when Secret Service agents accompanying him manage to kill the assassins before Nixon can be eliminated. 3. Nixon is killed but Mao survives.

In light of the fact that rogue elements of the USSR just committed an act of war against the United States and China, what happens from 1972 onwards as far as the Cold War is concerned? Would this be enough to start WW3?

Let's say that through geopolitical thinking, THE USA believed that keeping a somewhat friendly Iraq in the Middle East would balance powers in the Middle East and weaken Iran and Saudi Arabia. So they either negotiate with the Iraqis or don't. What would happen to the world?

For example, “the year is 1445 and you, Margaret of Anjou, have just married King Henry VI, can your actions prevent the Wars of the Roses?” Whoever ran it would have to be familiar with that time period and a good storyteller. Is there anything like this out there?

Denazification and reconstruction were two very similar goals, that being the destruction of a white supremicist ideology. but the former whilst not perfect was probably more successful and removing or at least undermining white supremecy than reconstruction.

So what if it wasn't? What if reconstruction was as successful as denazification and how would that be possible?

it was a proposal to divy up the land based on water basin/ catchment areas over its traditional boundaries.

so what if the states were divided on this instead of its normal borders?

How does this affect the Cold War if the US kept the good neighbor policy for Latin America but Containment for everyone else?? Do any Latin American countries potentially fall to communism like Cuba if the US kept a hands of approach?

No different than the Jews, or Aryans?

The premise is simple:

The Eastern Roman Empire never falls and remains a great power (the POD being that the Turkic migrations never happen since in OTL it started a domino effect that led to their eventual fall in 1453).

Iberia also remains Muslim (the POD being that one unconquered piece of Christian land in Iberia is conquered by the Umayyads in TTL, thus bringing the entire peninsula under Muslim rule instead of most of it).

How would this change European history?

Blanton Winship was Military Governor of Puerto Rico from 1934-1939. During his tenure he Militarized the police cracked down on Political opposition Mainly The Puerto Rican Nationalist Party which he often used lethal force. Under His watch the most Brutal Massacre in the History of Puerto Rico The Ponce massacre happened for which he was never charged. On July 25, 1938, Ángel Esteban Antongiorgi attempted to Assassinate the governor. What If Antongiorgi had Been successful that day

The African tectonic plate has been colliding with the Eurasian plate for 50 million years, right? I'm not exactly sure how long this has been happening, can someone correct me in the comments? And what if, starting from the Pliocene, the African plate began to move away from the Eurasian plate? How would this affect the topography of Africa, Asia, and Europe? How would human evolution have been affected? Would Africa still be connected to Eurasia by land? How would the climate, fauna, and flora of the mentioned continents have developed?

Before Sultan Suleiman died, he planned of the restoration of al-Andalus, most likely in the form of the Emirate of Granada under the House of Nasr, on the Iberian peninsula. However, he died before that plan will even get executed. And when his son, Selim II, ascended on the throne, he abandoned his father's plans to restore al-Andalus and went to take Cyprus from the Republic of Venice instead.

But what if Sultan Selim II decided to go along with his father's plan to retake al-Andalus? Will such a plan succeeded? And if it did succeed, how will this impacted the Iberian peninsula and even Europe and North Africa due to the alliances the Ottoman Empire have with England, the Netherlands and France? How long will the Republic of Venice get to keep Cyprus? Will the Jews get to move out of the Papal States in accordance of the plan of Duke Joseph Nasi of Naxos and have them settled in the cities such as Safed and Tibrius in the Safed Sanjak? How long can the Emirate of Granada survived after the restoration? And how will Sultan Selim II be remembered in this timeline if he succeeded in restoring al-Andalus in the form of the Emirate of Granada?

For example, if Spanish arrived later when there was no more internal unrest, and could not conquer them. How different history would be?

If the Europeans had only colonized the Americas. Rather at a global-scale. how would that affect history into the modern day. Would the technology advance and would be seemly similar like in OTL? or would it be technologically different or far behind from our OTL.