10 Alternate Scenarios That Are Actually Dumb - AlternateHistoryHub Reaction 

The "Sunset Invasion" idea definitly came from a CK2 player. 😂

Chris, read the letters between the Japanese Secretary of State and the minister to the Soviet Union. The Supreme council refused to believe the Soviets would declare war. It is literally insane to look at the translations, they sound like there were written by mad men. Which describes the half the Supreme Council well.

Have to point out something Cody forgot in his analysis of a potential British intervention in the civil war. Cassius Clay, the American ambassador to Russia negotiated a deal with Emperor Alexander II that not only resulted in the US acquiring Alaska but an agreement that they would declare war on the UK and France if they officially recognized the Confederacy, with the Russian Navy even dispatched to the East and West coasts of the US with sealed orders that likely contained instructions to attack/blockade the Confederacy in the event Britain or France intervened. It's hard to imagine it in today's post cold war political climate but there was a time where Russia and the US had really close ties to one another.

Chris, the nazis were never invading America due to lack of Naval capabilities. And invading the US is much more complex than invading Russia. 1.) you have to cross an ocean and perform a sea invasion. 2, there are multiple mountain ranges and different types of terrain compared to the European plain that pretty much makes up almost all of European Russia

The thing with 'What if Rome industrialises?' is that it relies on another question being answered first, like 'What if Rome lasted longer?' Same thing with Harald conquering England, you would need to ask, 'What if Harald defeated William when he had the chance?' What could possibly be happening is that people are interpreting questions like these differently. You might catagorise some things as being applicable to the question at hand whereas he might think that they're vastly different things that require their own question. Not to invalidate your view, because you do bring questions that I hadn't even considered before and your expertise on history is very helpful to understanding it better.

Alexander the Great had absolutely no reason to go West. His causus belli was against Persia, part of the reason why his troops were starting to mutiny towards the end of his campaign was that he was going into India, which they frankly had no reason to invade. Furthermore, the Mediterranean and Northern Africa just lacked both the sheer wealth and prestige of Persia, which was the single greatest power in the region. Could he have gone there instead of East? Yes. But unless you massively change the timeline to such an extent that Alexander the Great even being born requires an ASB, it's just not happening. Similarly with Rome. Rome was built on slavery, and towards its later life was completely socially stratified. The flaws that brought it down were inherent to the system. Changing that would mean changing Rome into something that is distinctly not "Roman". Especially the argument you bring forth, that if Rome remained strong it could have industrialized is faulty. A strong Rome has no reason to improve. It'd be like Qing China, whose elites refused to reform the country even with existential pressures put upon them, but without said existential pressures. So why would anyone who can change anything change anything? There's no reason for them to do so. You ironically fall into the same fallacy you point out in believing that progress would just happen. To get rid of slavery, to develop the scientific method, to fundamentally change society to allow for social mobility, all of these things happened in our timeline in Europe due to a series of compounding happy circumstances, and even there they were anything but guaranteed. Without those circumstances, why would Rome go through these same developments? Again, ASB interference would be required. As for Italy, while I have seen some calculations that Germany could have hypothetically made up for the loss of coal if it joined the war on the side of the Central Powers, it would a) still be risking total economic collapse, and b) requires the Habsburgs to give up territory that they see as theirs, which after all the humiliations and defeats they aren't willing to, and if you expect German diplomatic finesse to find a compromise I have a bridge to sell you. Finally, while yes, there was a coup in Japan, it was small and fizzled out. The leadership knew they were done for, and between the bombing and Soviet invasion of Manchuria any hope for a negotiated settlement had gone out the window. Potential History (IIRC) made a video about why the Japanese surrendered where he goes into that.

I love it when Chris does anything alternate history. He always has an amazing and unique perspective. So excited to see what it is. It's also becoming less common to find a less extreme perspective on historical subjects. Yet Chris manages to do so. Perfection.

I think you are taking Alternate History to mean "Assume any Hypothetical you want" and He is looking for scenarios with the minimal necessary divergance from our timeline.

Will definitely defend Cody on the last scenario. The Nazi's couldn't even invade Brittan which was only ~50-60 Miles away. Meanwhile the Allies with Overwhelming air and naval still had many struggles on D-day. Germany could never hope to invade the USA. Japan had better odds than them, but their navy and industrial capacity was still woeful compared to the USA. Even if they somehow win key battles, their Asian Empire would be HUGE at around 700 million people. No way they could bother the invading the USA without imploding from overextension.

Keep in mind that the top 10 scenarios are from his viewers then he evaluated for the video. Some of the scenarios are popular alternate history theories within the community.

32:40 - He means alternative history that makes an intention of being believable, or at least trying.

25:00 By the time of the war, Italy didn't consider the Alliance as valid anymore. They had agreed to continue it solely to prevent Austria from invading any of their lands, but they made it very clear that they considered Austria as enemies and aggressors. Austria had invaded the Balkans without complying with the terms of the treaty, and when Italy complained, Austria basically told them to shut up and deal with it.

For Italy, the Triple Alliance only had some convenience for them. Italians fought numerous wars against Austria mostly in rebellion against theie rule. And held on to strategic areas containing ethnic Italians which they desired. Austria-Hungary can't risk collapsing itself by allowing even just one ethnicity to secede. Both countries (in their desires) were mortal enemies who were kept at bay by their alliance to Germany.

"this isn't meant to be accurate" I think he probably should have said "plausible"

I think with the Rome and steam power scenario he was more talking about most alt history is down to a single domino event. But to get the Romans to steam power is so many specic dominos the scenario becomes so many different what elifs because of the requirements it becomes a mess. I do think Rome could have industrialized but it would have taken a startling event and then a series of lucky chances to cause it

I have to disagree with you regarding the point that if Rome survived, industrialisation would have happened sooner. Rome had some fundamental flaws going back to their early days, that were core parts of their identity (connection between military and politics, slavery monopolised by a few elites causing the poor rural countryside to flee to the cities, etc.). Rome was destined to fall centuries before it it did in our timeline, and it was necessary, in my opinion, as it hard-reset society. Rome has been stagnating for a very long time, and that's the reason why it fell. The fall of rome brought new societies and new views, which ultimately led to progress beyond what rome achieved. Rome couldn't have just grown and developed into infinity, and there isn't one simple thing you just need to change and everything is perfect now. It had a disloyal army, power-hungry generals, a poor unemployed population, massive social spending to feed the poor, slavery monopolised by elites. All of this causing instability and general stagnating.

11:55 Keep in mind tho that by this time the vast majority of Danes in todays England have either been assimilated or massacred by Æthelred the Unready in the St. Bride’s Day massacre in 1002, or the Oxford massacre in 1004.

I do post/consulting on Mesoamerican (Aztec, Maya etc) history and archeology: "Sunset Invasion" is obviously impossible, but I have issues with the specific reasons Cody gives (mainly, his description of how Aztec warfare worked is outdated, and he conflates unrelated cultures), and I also wanted to respond to some of the commentary you gave, which is where I'll start: It's true the Aztec specifically are a very recent culture and empire (by most definitions, forming between 1200-1420AD), but Mesoamerica DOES have civilizations going back many thousands of years, including in the same exact valley that would become the core of the Aztec Empire (and where Mexico City is today): EX: Tlatilco was an early town with Olmec influences there around 1500-400BC (using the widest date ranges). A few centuries after that, Cuicuilco developed as a large city before volcanic eruptions around 0-200AD displaced people in the valley who concentrated into Teotihuacan (the second largest city after Cuicuilco). Teotihuacan then exploded in size, and at its height in 400-500AD, had 100,000 denizens; a ~20sqkm planned grid; complex waterworks and plumbing; with almost its whole population living in fancy palace compounds. It's art and architectural style spreads spreads down as far as Guatemala, where they may have even conquered some Maya city-states Teotihuacan declines from what seems to be a civil uprising around 550-650AD, and Central Mexico balkanizes into a few smaller-medium sized kingdoms ruled by cities like Xochicalco, Cantona, Tula (often said to be the capital of the Toltecs, who the Aztec describe as a utopian intellectual civilization which existed from 700-1100AD, but these accounts are heavily mythologized), etc. Around 1200AD Nahuatl speaking nomads migrate in from Northwestern Mexico, adopting local urban statehood, and forming Aztec civilization as we know it. The "Aztec Empire" specifically formed when the cities of Tenochtitlan, Texcoco, and Tlacopan overthrew their capital of Azcapotzalco in the late 1420s and then maintained an alliance for subsequent expansionism So yeah, even if you ignore other parts of Mesoamerica and the Olmec, Maya, Zapotec, Mixtec, Totonacs, Purepecha, etc, the actual area the Aztec were centered in had civilization for 2000-2500+ years, even if the Aztec specifically where migrants to that area recently Okay, so that aside, what about AltHistoryHub's video? As I alluded to before, he conflates the Aztec with the Inca, even though the Inca are an Andean civilization, while the Maya, Aztec etc are Mesoamerican. The two regions had little contact and are as far apart as London is from Baghdad. Even for the Aztec specifically, his point about their mindset of warfare being different, focused on captive taking and Flower Wars, isn't accurate: While those were parts of Aztec warfare, they were not things all Aztec militarism revolved around The Aztec's main goal in expansion was getting goods like gold, cacao, jade, fine feathers, obsidian etc by forcing city-states and kingdoms into relatively hands off tax-paying arrangements. It's not my area, so the comparison might be off, but it's sorta like with the Mongols where if you coughed up taxes, you mostly got left alone to self-manage, but if you didn't, you'd get invaded. Even when a city did refuse/resist, or even when subjects stopped paying taxes, the Aztec response was (usually) not instant escalation to razing, massacres, and mass enslavement: They did that stuff sometimes (especially if a city incited OTHERS to also stop paying taxes), but usually just demanded steeper taxes the more a city resisted prior to it finally being conquered, and even in those cases still usually left local rulers and laws in place, though sometimes they did place military governors onto subjects or soldiers in garrisons to dissuade rebellions This sort of hands-off arrangement was typical in Mesoamerica: There were no draft animals, and the terrain was mostly highland valleys and mountains or lowland jungles and swamps. Long distance administration and campaigns were difficult, you so it was easier to be hands off and leave local power in place and coerce it, then to order things in a top down manner. But if you're razing cities, burning fields, enslaving or sacrificing whole populations, how are they gonna cough up the cacao, gold, etc? You're spending significant manpower to trek and carry supplies on foot with no draft animals, across difficult terrain terrain just to annihilate the place you're trying to take advantage of and then have to rebuild or repopulate it. That's simply not efficient and wasn't how they normally did things. If what they cared about was mostly collecting captives for sacrifice, then that wouldn't be a concern. But the primary goal was economics (both to get resources, and to then flex that economic network to court political marriages and alliances, constant expansion also flexed military power: With this hands-off political system, the only thing stopping subjects and vassals from seceding is that carrot-and-stick) and we see the Aztec specifically target city-states and kingdoms with rich economic resources during their expansion. They conquered Xoconusco/Soconusco, all the way down in Chiapas, almost Guatemala, to secure as a source of Cacao, for example. Demanding captives/slaves as taxes wasn't common either: For example, it only shows up ONCE in the Codex Mendoza compared to dozens of tax listings for material goods and supplies. And even that one tax-demand of captives isn't the province (Tepeacac) being told to supply their own people, but rather to supply captured soldiers taken from Tlaxcala, Huextozinco, Cholula etc: States the Aztec were enemies with, IE an indirect demand to help besiege those states. (That said, civilians were often given as slaves, in addition to soldiers captured in the battle, as part of offer by a state when it surrendered after losing to an invasion: It's just regular payments of captives as annual taxes after that point was rare) Okay, so what IS the deal with taking captives? It was certainly a common and important part of warfare, but, but at least for the Aztec, the consensus is now that it was secondary to actual tactical military objectives and goals. After all, these were organized armies with proper unit divisions and ranks, armor (AlthistoryHub shows Aztec soldiers wearing Jaguar pelts like cave men, when they had padded gambeson armor: it's just the warsuits/tunics worn over the gambeson had patterns, such as jaguar spots, made from a mosaic of iridesecent feathers), bespoke weapons (swords/macuahuitl, different kinds of clubs, maces, axes, spears, glaives, pikes, bows, atlatl, slings etc) and we have records of complex tactics like pincer formations, feigned retreats, ambushes, and so on Captive taking seems to mostly happen after enemy lines break: you probably wouldn't have seen soldiers going out of their way to avoid killing during the middle of a close battle. The fact that captive taking was so important to rank advancement itself betrays that it was a rare/impressive feat, rather than it being the norm instead of killing an enemy, especially since different kings gave decrees saying from then on captured soldiers from X or Y state would grant extra or no rank promotions, based on if they were perceived to be formidable or weak (or how important a military target/threat they were) Finally, Flower Wars: As I alluded to before, not all wars were Flower wars. In fact, they seem to not even be that particularly common. There is come contradictory info on this, but the Mexica seemingly only regularly employed them against Tlaxcala, Huextozinco, etc in an offensive capacity. They were sometimes done between the Mexica and existing subjects, but these were mutually agreed on in special circumstances like to cement alliances (though this fact allegedly was kept secret from commoners, so they wouldn't know their lives were used for pageantry). Next, these were not just ritual conflicts about getting captives (in fact I've seen some assertions that they did involve killing in battle too, or that captives were released, etc), but also had pragmatic military utility Against enemy states, Flower Wars were a way to dip your toes into the water with lower intensity warfare, which could then escalate into full normal warfare, or could be called off. EX the wars with Chalco gradually evolved from Flower Wars to become increasingly pragmatic and serious over time. Their smaller scale also meant they could be waged year round (unlike normal wars) and/or for many years straight, as a sort of extended siege to wear enemy states down (Traditional siege warfare wan't common in Mesoamerica, tho this is debated a bit). Flower Wars also kept soldiers trained and fit when they might otherwise not have been in the field, and provided opportunities to collect captives, keeping soldiers invested in a military career as a result. Some researchers even believe the entire idea of Aztec flower wars against Tlaxcala etc was just revisionism by Aztec sources to justify when they could never conquer the state(s)! There's more I could say, and admittedly, again, there's some contradictrary information about Flower Wars and sieges/garrisons. There's also the fact that "Aztec" is a pretty imprecise term: Since each subject was mostly indepedent, they had their own different practices. And, again, captive taking WAS still important and there WERE ritual elements to Mesoamerican warfare. To play devil's advocate, some researchers have argued that the literature has overcorrected, and now the ritual elements are downplayed too much instead of being overemphasized as they used to be. But AltHistoryHub is certainly overemphasizing it, as even if ritualism was A aspect of Aztec militarism, certainly economics, tactics, and politics were too

36:25 yes they are an ocean away and it needed the full economic Power of the US, springboards closer to the target and in the case of Germany a big chunk of the enemy forces being occupied elsewhere, to pull the Invasion off. Considering both Germany and Japan would have been busy trying to hold together what they conquered, aka large regions of land with people who are not loyal to their new overlords, the specific Man in the High-Castle scenario is just not realistic. Maybe 2 or 3 Generations down the road, so a year 2k Invasion, but that would still have been difficult. Also I think he means "the author didn't think too hard about how this scenario would happen and where the actual borders would be", when he talked about the map not being meant to be accurate.

Ohio shirt, fitting considering Cody is from Toledo

To me "The Man in the High Castle " is similar to "1984". It uses alternative history as a means to tell the story. Like how Star Trek uses space travel,

“Russia is huge, and Germany invaded them” Germany is also connected landwise with Russia.

I think the issues you have with the premises are because you two are coming at this from completely different angles. You immediately accept the premise as its handed to you, someone says "What if Italy joined the Central Powers?" And you go "OK, Italy is in the Central Powers, now what happens?" Where as Cody is looking for IF there was the POTENTIAL of the scenario happening in our timeline. If we're continuing with the Italy example Cody is making the argument that so many PoD's would need to occur and the nations would need to act so "out of character" so to speak that there was never a chance of it happening. Same with High Castle at the end. He's not asking "What if history happened like in the book?", if you want that just read the book. It's "If somehow the Axis Powers won WW2 would the same events as Man in the High Castle happen?" And the answer is no. And both approaches are valid and useful, I just think you missed opportunities to commentate in this video because you kept arguing with the premise instead of analyzing it

Two of my favorite history channels coming together

Old Britainia explained it best...italy was never friends with Austria Hungary around WW1 and waiting for the reason to stab them in the back. I think that the italians changing face was predictable as well as inevitable. They wanted the destruction of Austria hungary

Funny thing about Roman industrialization, their counterparts the Han Chinese was the closest to achieving it without realizing it. They were already exporting steel to Rome as a product aside from other Silk Road goods. Chinese irons and steel were cheap in relative to Romans because the Chinese made theirs through the use of blast furnace for cast-iron manufacturing. They figured out that it is quicker and cheaper to mass produce goods, especially agricultural tools for plowing, through continuously-fed furnace. Now the Romans did have blast-furnace as well but they were more ‘domestic’ market than the Hans were. They just couldn’t figure out how the economy of scale works.

I love Alternate History. Sometimes the smallest change could have gigantic consequences.

I think you forget that Hitler didn't like Naval warfare that much, mostly because it sapped a lot of resources. He played it defensively in the Atlantic, mostly just going after American supply ships.

Alternate history is awesome

I'm going to comment on three of these scenarios 1: Harald Haldrada was after York, not London he was reclaiming the Danelaw not England as a whole because it is where he had local support for his invasion. If he wins at Stamford Bridge he then marches and takes York ,so William gets almost a free pass in October landing at Pevensey and marching on London. England splits back again in to the Danelaw and the now Norman duchies of Wessex, Kent and Mercia. You could then argue that the "Historical" northern suppression under William then happens as an "invasion of the North" and we get a pitched battle somewhere on the great north road near York, with two formidable armies; the Danelaw aligned with vikings from Dublin fighting and probably a contingent of Anglo-Saxon rebels under Edgar Atheling ,against the new Anglo-Norman army, in I estimate about 1068/9 - It would be an interesting what if battle to war-game anyway. So History would repeat itself as it so often does.....as it is similar to the events when Aethelstan invaded the north and fought the Battle of Brunanburh in 937 (which we have as yet no idea where this battle happened but the archaeologists are still actively looking), when the Anglo-Saxons plan started under Alfred, is completed by his grandson and is original creation of the English kingdom happens. 2. ACW with British involvement- Every-time the US has invaded Canada it gets its butt kicked back South and 50% of the time the White house gets set on fire! its just not a good idea. On the whole Canadians are really nice people who like to stay nice as much as possible with you....... unless you declare war with them; then they turn into your worse nightmare and fight you in ways that that are "really unpleasant" (today some of these "methods" are considered to be war-crimes!). So its "like never get involved in a land war in SE asia", or "Never fight on 2 fronts simultaneously"...."Don't invade Canada it really is not worth the pain that will happen to you". 3. Germany and the A bomb- this was not happening anytime soon under the man with the mustache- in reality the massive inefficiency of the German state, they could never centralised their efforts under one group, disparate groups with small bits of research being ultimately duplicated multiple times. So the closest the Germans got was the "Reich's post office" (no not joking on this one) building a nuclear reactor which could have made small amounts of fissile U235 and Pu239 and releases some energy. but only about 1/100th of the amount to build a viable weapon. Even if all the competing factions in Germany get anywhere by cooperation is still cant match the Manhattan Project in its resources, and they still had to build an intercontinental delivery system which could get across the Atlantic (probably a big missile).

It's important to note that the standard Cody is using to judge the realism of a scenario is how many point of divergences (PoD's) are necessary for that scenario to occur. So, for example, while one might argue that, had Rome remained a powerful empire for a few centuries longer than it did, it could have industrialized, the sheer number of PoD's required for that to happen is simply not realistic. It needs to be understood that the fall of the Romans was an extremely multifaceted event in history. There wasn't just one thing, or even a small set of things, that doomed Rome to fail. There were hundreds of factors going against the Romans, and a large number of them were capable of triggering Rome's fall in one way or another. As a result, one would need a large number of PoD's to prevent Rome from falling long enough for them to industralize. I think analyzing the value of alternate history scenarios in this way is incredibly helpful for understanding history, because oftentimes the unrealistic scenarios are the ones that shape popular views of history. I think there are at least some people out there who think that Man in the High Castle is a plausible scenario and that such a conclusion has shaped their view of history and, consequently, modern war and politics today. I'm sure the common claim that "America would not be a free country today if the Axis won WW2," is heavily premised on the fact that the Axis would have occupied the American heartland if they won. These ideas about history reinforce political beliefs in politics today, such as claims that it is *absolutely necessary* that America remains the strongest military power in the world. If I was an isolationist in America, I could use these misconceptions about history and skewer some arguments for American interventionism. Beliefs about the necessity of nuclear weapons today are certainly influenced by false ideas about how much the atomic bombings motivated Japan's surrender. Such ideas are reinforced by unrealistic alternate history scenarios.

Regarding the Roman industrialization idea, I think the primary spark for such a thing would be the printing press making reading, writing, scientific, and philosophical efforts more possible and widespread. Of course, the "printing press" here involves multiple inventions - particularly inexpensive paper and ink. But if that was somehow put into existence in the 1st century, we could potentially see a lot of the scientific and enlightenment revolutions happening during the age of the Roman Empire and see the industrial age come much sooner.

Potential History did a really good video about why Japan surrendered and maybe you could do a reaction to that as why Japan surrendered is such a debated topic and there are many misconceptions about it.

A "slightly softer version" of the unconditional surrender had already been offered by Japan, & rejected by the Allies.

A little insight from a Spaniard. Most of the national army sided with Franco while the Republicans were in disarray. If you want more details, George Orwell has this amazing book (Homage to Catalonia) where he talks about his experience volunteering to fight among the Communist faction in 1936-37. The moment he enlisted, he was promoted to Corporal since almost all of his companions were teenagers. The guns they were provided with were antique and of very poor quality. The Condor Legion was crucial, yes, and the Allies not intervening as well, but it looked pretty bad from the very start for the Republicans.

A couple things I would like to mention about the Harold H. scenario. I know historians have mapped out what the weather was probably like during the year 1066 by reading what accounts we have and knowing weather patterns today. And the weather that was holding William back in Normandy was speeding Harold H. to England. So if William got the winds he needed to land in England first, it might have delayed Harold H. even longer and gave Harold G. the chance to recoup. Also, while the northern part of England had a lot of people of Danish decent, the south was majority Saxon German and probably have resisted Harold H. as much as they resisted William.

Because these came from his discord, they are very clearly for the alt history community, and addressing things that are often referenced. He’s not saying they are impossible, he’s saying they are less likely than many in the community like to think they are.

30:45 The Japanese coup attempt was very minimal in scope and didn’t have massive government or military backing. Japan was trying to find a way out of the war and had been for weeks by that point.

Hating a little too much on this dude. Several of his points were entirely valid. Man in the High Castle for example, his point is that it wasn’t a realistic alternate history. You can write alternate history based on realistic scenarios, or you can make it entirely fictional. That was his point.

About Alexander going west to Rome, he'd have a very hard time convincing people that it was a worthy target, while his army was built to take on Persia (the big threat for the last 150-200 years). While in our timeline, Rome only appeared on the greek radar after threatening some greek cities in southern Italy. Still, it didn't draw the ire of Macedonia, but of the smaller Epirus, Pyrrhus seeing an opportunity to raise his own power then be stronger against Macedonia, so it was taking on Rome or no one else. All that was after Alexander. There wouldn't be any reason for Alexander to strike an italian backwater instead of Persia.

The Sunset Invasion is a scenario in Europa Universalis IV that plays under the idea that american civilizations had (by magic and alien intervention) westernized before the game starts, so they are in equal footing to the great european powers technologicaly. The thing about that scenario in real life lacks a crucial component (I know, people tend to go with the lack of tech and knowledge to dismiss it, but it's simpler): The "NEED". Europe needed to reach India and Asia for their products, and that's what makes the scenario impossible. No one embarks on a costly and dangerous trip for the giggles. Even the Vikings sailed towards England because they knew there were lands to pillage there. Even if the Aztecs, Mayas or Incas had the tech, they had no reason to go exploring an ocean away, while they didn't even explored the rest of the continent, let alone go on a conquest spree when there was plenty more to conquest at home (remember, maps lie. South America alone has 70% more surface than all of Europe, and it's even bigger than Russia).

I think from a mental framing perspective, the way Cody went about this and the way he tends to go about his alternate history videos is picking a POD and then sticking with "reasonable" fallout or changes from there. Each of the ones he does are certainly not always one change but usually kept minimal. Some of the scenarios in this video require a whole cascade of changes, many of which are quite large, to work out. I think that's where he's getting for some of these when he says there's no way. All that said, I also disagree with him on some of these, at least with his characterizations if not his entire premise. Still love the channel and the video though. There are no completely "correct" answers with alternate history after all, we all get our own opinions.

Italy in both World Wars was like that friend every group hates because he can't stop messing up.

Regarding Harald Hardrada's chances of conquering England:. 1. He was King of Norway not the King of the Danes who had (under Canute) had been the King of England only 30 years before. The Godwinsons (Harold of Wessex family) had actually served Canute before his line died out and Edward the Confessor regained the throne. When Harald (and Harold's brother Torstig) arrived in the north they were resisted by Edwin, Earl of Mercia, and his brother Morcar, Earl of Northumbria, at the Battle of Fulford, outside York. Following this victory they received the surrender of York. Having briefly occupied the city and taken hostages and supplies from the city they returned towards their ships. 2.Harald had a finite army. The Norwegians were NOT welcomed by the Anglo Saxons and English Danes and he and Torstig did not gain any significant reinforcements from the local populace. This means that even if Harald defeated and killed Harold at Stamford Bridge the Norwegian army would have been battered and further weakened. Harold reinforced his army as he marched south to confront William. Harald wouldn't have had that reinforcement. So his army, after two battles won, would still have taken casualties which he could not replensih quickly. 3. Marching south to fight William. Consider he would be marching through hostile territory the whole way (remember he is Norwegian not a Dane, his army is going to suffer further attrition and require the allocation of garrisons along his route to keep his supply line back to his boats in Yorkshire secure. His army (which was around 9000 strong would be rather small by the time it reached southern England to face Williams 15,000. In fact the English would likely have resisted or at least not assisted any advance made by the Norwegians. I think this is why Harald retreated after beating the Northern Earls. He was a long way from his base (Norway) and all he could do once he realised that Torstig had lied about the support he claimed would welcome his arrival, was pull back towards his original base and maybe even reboard his ships and simply raid coastal towns. Harold stopped this by force marching north before Harald had decided his next move. 4. Battle joined: Regarding the Norwegians vs the Normans in battle yes the situation is sort of similar to the one Harold faced against William (minus the numbers the Saxons could deploy).. An infantry based army vs an army with a large cavalry base supported by infantry armed, in part, with archers is always interesting but the initiative is always with the cavalry heavy army and if, like William, you know how to use that advantage, the infantry based army is in trouble. . I do not doubt that the Norwegians would have held as well as the Saxons against the Norman cavalry charges but the Norwegians did not have many archers so Harald could not reply effectively against the Norman archers supplemented by the Breton, javelin armed, cavalry bombarding the Norwegian Shield Wall any more than King Harold Godwinson, and the Norwegian would have a lot less men. Attrition by fire would have weakened the Shield Wall until a cavalry charge could break it up and once broken there was nothing left but the slaughter. So I agree with him, Harald of Norway had no chance on doing more than having a good old fashioned raid before buggering off home.

Hey Chris, as someone who has watch more of Cody's videos. It might help to know that he has really leaned into keeping motivations, and actions of people, nations etc. To be logically consistent to his own interpretation of said actions and motivations. An example of this is his video on Alexander Hamilton becoming president. He largely rules out Hamilton running for Pres. due to his assessment of Hamilton's lack of a presidential run IRL, yet transposes the same actions over to another timeline. And has him puppteering another person, vs just simply making him run. It is a slightly more restricted what if ism when he approaches his videos.

The Axis would never have considered the idea of invading the US mainland during the WWII time period. They simply did not have the naval or logistical reach for it. There was no scenario that the Germans could even pull off Sealion, much less crossing the Atlantic in force. And while Japan had a larger and more capable navy than Germany, they were designed to secure the island chains around them, and didn’t have the range to even reach Hawaii. They only pulled off Pearl Harbor because they pushed their carriers to the very extremes of their operational range. Perhaps things could be different in an Axis v Allies Cold War, but an actual invasion of the US itself in the ‘40s or even ‘50s was never in the cards.

Please take the 8 Values political Quiz. Maybe live stream it?

Man that Italy scenario was really out there. Glad to see you had another perspective.

Both Oppenheimer and Einstein both said later in life that they regretted helping the US develop nuclear weapons and that if they had known how far Germany was from making nukes they wouldn't have brought their work to the US.

If you look at sources from the Japanese government around the end of the war there was actually a lot of talk of maybe using the Soviets as a mediator or possibly even challenge the West after the war in Europe ended, although those who did believe they could get the West-Soviet Alliance to break apart were more or less living in a fantasy world at that point in time. You also have to remember the ingrained culture in Japan at the time, the Emperor was seen as a living god, if he wanted the country to surrender no one would dare challenge that, even if they wanted to. Those who committed the coup were officers in the military, and were so radical in their beliefs that they probably would have killed the Emperor. Challenging the Emperor's decision was seen as dishonorable in Japanese society at the time, which is why the coup was swiftly put down. It's an interesting part in Japanese history that is sometimes overlooked.

22:57 On top of that, America was no longer its 1776 and 1812 self. Within 6 months of the Proclaimation going into effect, Lincoln had finally found a team of generals that could defeat the Confederacy: Meade, Grant, and Sherman. To these would be added generals like George Thomas, Phillip Sheriden, and as you've pointed out Ambrose Burnside who (despite Burnside's good plan at Fredericksberg going down to miscommunication) were highly competent. Canada would not have been a difficult target for the large, veteran armies that won at Gettysberg and Vicksburg commanded by good generals like the ones that won those battles. None of this would have escaped the notice of Britain.

For someone who's not trying to be difficult, you're doing a fantastic job. Like so many of the things you say could happen just couldn't have, logistically; you're not taking events in the context of what came before.

Hey man I found your channel a few weeks ago and have been hooked! History is one of my favorite subjects and channels like yours are the reason why. Thanks!

Ok, just so you know you can't be a REAL historian until you do a video on the Honeytree War.

The law of Anime is that the more exotic your character is, the more powerful he or she is; especially if they're on their own. So a jaguar warrior could probably slay like 5 conquistadors, at once, if he steps into europe. And you can bet he'll make it to europe, because every anime has a twist! However, if he's still in the americas, he's surrounded by others like him, so he's a goner.

14:02 I don't usually play this card but I'm Chinese-American and can tell you it would be really hard for even Ming China to conquer the Americas.

I've heard i think stories from japanese people during ww2 that said the nukes didn't really change their minds on the war because they were already being bombed to hell by regular american raids directed by Lemay. On the other hand, the russians joining the war had a much bigger impact because they had been anxious and afraid for months that it would happen. We know now that nukes are way worse than regular bombs, but in the moment of the war, I don't think the nukes had that much of an impact. Hell, if the nukes were that scary, Japan prob would've surrendered before it was dropped. Also we know now that america dropping the bombs was more of a show of force to the soviets for what would happen after the war.

I think the best alternate history timelines are ones with a singular point of divergence. For example the King of England (George V) defies parliament and allows Nicholas II asylum in England. Maybe they broker a deal with the US or Canada to get him out of Europe. Through bargaining and appealing to "the greater good" the passage HE HAS WAGED CRUEL WAR was never removed from the declaration of independence and the now former slaves where armed to help fight the British. Spain takes full responsibility and apologizes/pays the US for the sinking of the USS Maine in Havana Harbor. Booth is stopped from Killing Lincoln. He still shoots Lincoln but he is tackled and only shoots him in the shoulder/arm maiming the president instead of killing him. Garfield's doctors (fearing the worst) leave the bullet in him and leave him be. Teddy Roosevelt drops out of the race and supports Taft against Wilson after he is shot. After he gives his speech he then gets treatment for the wound and instead of continuing on says that the "bull moose" is better off helping Taft and supports Taft's bid for reelection vs Woodrow Wilson. The Germans don't sink the Lusitania. They capture and board the vessel allowing the civilians to leave or be held as POWs. The Treaty of Versailles is far more lenient and is based on Wilson's 14 points.

So, there is actually proof of this. There's a great video by Shaun who went into the timeline for the surrender of Japan. They truly thought the Russians would not invade them. The Japanese ambassador repeatedly wrote, as he was the one on the ground back home that the Russians had no desire to work with them. But, the same council whom he was in contact with said outright "keep pushing for him to help negotiate a surrender" Some members of the Japanese high council were so convinced of their own beliefs about the world new info was ignored. Full delusion like Nazi Germany.

You hit the nail squarely on the head several times, with your critiques. A lot of alternate historians are obsessed with "realism" because they are focused very heavily on great man and scientific theories of history... which is ironic because they also tend to actively dismiss or disparage those theories and rightly so. They also tend to be very stuck in the mindset of military history equals general history, so they tend to have blind spots or partial blind spots with regards to diplomacy, trade, science and technology, and espionage.

7:55 Yes he said drought. You picked it up VTH because you've likely read a beer menu in an English style pub where you were looking at what was on tap. Jolly good my good man!

28:56 Don't forget Oppenheimer was just the chief of this WORLD project. If he dies, he can be replaced. They are plenty of scientits coming from Europe who worked on this project and were at least as competent as Oppenheimer.

I'm just going to talk about the last one. Yes you could say the United States was a ocean away in the same sense that Germany and Japan were an ocean away and his reasons why they never really could threaten the US with invasion. The problem with your reaction on that was the US proved it could make amphibious landings in D-Day and other invasions. The US was a definite threat to Japan to invade them by sea. I think that was the point to get Stalin to invade from Manchuria to force Japan to fight on multiple fronts.

I was hoping you would react to this one. Great analysis as usual, Chris. I think the intent of the video was to critically evaluate popular alternate scenarios that require too many leaps in logic to be somewhat realistic. On the Rome inventing steam engines point, your scenario's pre-requisite was a Rome that survived hundreds of years longer than it did. In that case, it is absolutely realistic to expect them to invent steam power. Cody's point, though, didn't give Rome that sort of time; even if the empire survived longer than it did, it still may not have been enough to unlock steam power. You were both correct, but your parameters were different. I'm with you 100% about the Operation Downfall point, though. It's easy to forget that, even though Japan was clearly on the terminal defensive, casualties were going up as the Allies got closer to the home islands. Battles were becoming more desperate & scrappy, resulting in ever-climbing civilian death tolls. Japanese authorities were teaching children how to make spears out of bamboo shafts, and broadcasting slogans about 100 million souls dying for Japan. "But they were defeated! They were on their last legs!" Brother, Japan was defeated by January of 1944. You could argue Japan was defeated by June 7, 1942. Heck, you could even argue Japan's defeat was sealed by dusk December 7, 1941! That's how little a chance they had in a long term war, and they knew it, too. Even a novice officer could tell in 1945 that Japan's situation in the Pacific had become completely untenable. They dragged the war out far beyond any possible hope of receiving any reasonable consolation for their efforts, let alone victory. Japan was already defeated, but it didn't matter.

The two big reasons America couldn't be successfully invaded in World War II are the Atlantic and the Pacific. Even with all of America's industrial and sealift capabilities, those two factors greatly affected its ability to wage overseas war and how it waged it. A POD that impacted US intervention outside the Americas to the extent that the Axis win is plausible. One that led to the conquest of the US is not.

Hi toaster here, I kind of agree that the Italy joining the Central Powers portion was partially incorrect. in my initial essay I focused more on the reliance on trade with the Allied powers, and how joining the Central Powers would throw the nation into an economic shock due to the complete and utter reliance on allied Imports Italy was, and not the whole Italia Irredenta portion, in fact I believe (this was awhile ago) I included a segment discussing the possibility of Austria offering to concede more lands to Italy in order for their intervention (however I also believe this is impossible due to extreme ethnic tensions in the empire at the time, obviously). The original idea was why Italy would never join the Central powers, not why Italy joining the Central Powers wouldn't win Germany the war, as in many battles even a slight diversion of troops could have lead to more German victories, and Italy fighting France would cause a serious diversion of Entente troops and free millions of Austrian soldiers. Hope this clears up any confusion, and I'd love a critique of this take as well. happy to send over the essay if you'd like to read it. Also fun thing, Germany's involvement in the Spanish Civil war was mild, however Italy's was extensive, so should Italy pull their support, I definitely think the republicans could have won the war. (but that's not my essay and not my area of expertise)

Glad you did this video! I’m part of that discord server and it was so much fun taking part of this event (no, none of those scenarios are mine). I’ll send this to our admin so he can watch!

Not only would Italy staying with the Central Powers be a plausible outcome for a Central Powers victory, Italy joining no matter what changes the outcome a whole lot no matter who's side. We've seen the damage Italy joining the Entente did in our timeline, but If Austro-Hungary offers Italy the land they wanted and said, "We'll give you what you want so long as you remain Neutral." unless the Entente can come up with a better offer, Italy will take the deal and stay neutral denying the Entente another front and allowing the Central Powers more resources they can use on the other European fronts. If Austro-Hungary offered the land Italy wanted from them and offered land from France such as Corsica, Savoy, & Niece, saying, "It's all yours if you join us." obviously they'd have to think about it, but by accepting it, Italy screws over the Entente because of two reasons; One, that's more ocean for their sea vessels to manage and if they tried to blockade at the passage between Gibraltar and NEUTAL Spanish Morrocco they could wind up getting Spain involved on the side of the Central Powers if things escalated from there. Two, that's another front for France & Britain to manage which could spread their resources thinner than it was already at that point. If the Ottoman Empire still joins on the side of the Central Powers too that's further resources, they'll have to spread even thinner.

another thing I like about alternate history is that its a reminder that our timeline was not pre-ordained or guaranteed. Some people seem to think that way. But outcomes can turn on the roll of a dice or the flap of a butterflywing.

A more plausible point of departure for English history would be Knut, King Canute, having better luck with his sons, and keeping England and Scandinavia together as one society.

0:22 I mean, personally, my interest in alternate history fueled my desire to understand normal history. Its so essential to have a firm grasp on what happened during and after the point of your divergence if you intend to tell a well grounded story that you end up becoming a semi-expert on key eras of history just for the sake of writing the tale. Its sort of like building a murder mystery- every piece you introduced in the story must be placed very carefully because your audience by its very nature will be scrutinizing every little detail.

There's a Japanese light novel series called Modern Villainess built around an alternate history scenario where Japan waits a few more weeks before surrendering to the US...not long enough for Operation Downfall to kick in, but long enough for the Soviets to conquer Hokkaido and set up a Communist puppet state in Hokkaido + Sakhalin. This Communist regime falls apart at the end of the Cold War and gets reabsorbed into Japan proper just like East Germany got absorbed by the West. The novels really get into the weeds of Japanese economic history in the 1990s and 2000s.

Chris with alternate history you have to make it sorta realistic like if we have a scenario of nazi winning ww2 you gonna have change so much about them that they won’t even be Nazi anymore Alexander wouldn’t be him if he invaded Rome and likewise Rome wouldn’t be Rome if they’re industrial

A short list of my own remarks (in no particular order) that I'll try to keep brief (would love to go into more details if people reply): -The "Chinese discover America" scenario is based on the Ming Treasure Voyages, a real and colossal project undertaken in the early 1400s by the recently-installed Ming dynasty. They built these huge ships (made Colombus' boats look like canoes) and sent them out along trade routes as far as East Africa to collect tribute from states and peoples along the way. They were headed by Zheng He, Chinese Muslim eunuch, and they're honestly really cool, there's a great Kings and Generals video about them. -Your point about a reverse timeline between Stamford Bridge and Hastings happening is a good one. However, in keeping with Cody's scenario, I don't think Hardrada would have more luck in northern England than William did (wasn't easy settling for Normans either). Just because a part of the people there had Scandinavian descent doesn't mean they'd instantly bow down to a Norwegian king. -The Aztec Invasions scenario is based on a book by Laurent Binet called "Civilizations", in which alternate Norse voyages leave iron, steel and Old World diseases much earlier than in our timeline. As a result, the Incas this time have the technology and the immune system to go east.

Look up how Texacco supplied Franco's rebel army with petroleum products and Ford supplied motor vehicles. Without fuel, the Condor Legion doesn't fly. Without trucks, troops move much more slowly. Having Roosevelt crack down is easy to picture.

Regarding the Japanese surrender. Akira Kurisawa in his biography talked about getting married in preparation for the Emperors order for mass suicide to avoid the shame of occupation. So without the bombs their might not have been any Japan left.

On #3 you also have to take into account that Harold Godwinson’s own brother was in the Viking army so if they were able to win at Stanford Bridge he might’ve been able to grease the wheels if you will, to secure the north pretty quickly. While William probably would’ve taken the south before Hardrada was ready to move on him it would’ve taken a lot longer for either side to take over all of England.

The way alternate history goes nowadays is that the divergence points should be small in number. The number of divergence points and the associated requirements are mostly what he is complaining about.

Potential History has made an excellent video about the reasons Japan surrendered. Very thorough. Would recommend.

I don't know how common it is now, but a decade ago when cell phones were pretty much everywhere doctors were still carrying pagers. This was because pagers had much better signal coverage than cell phones. A doctor would get a page, then go to a spot with good signal strength to make his call.

I give guided tours of the Spanish civil war in Madrid. I generally defer to the historian Paul Preston who says that the only way the republicans had any chance of winning was that if Britain and France had lifted the non-intervention pact, which was a defacto embargo, banning the popular front from access to weapons and fuel markets, making them dependent entirely on what the Soviets sent, which wasn't enough. So they could have actually helped in this way without sending military aid and further stoking the tensions with Germany that they were afraid of. Yes, the factionalism in the popular front was a big killer for them, but in my opinion supply problems doomed them from the start.

20:00 everytime George III is brought up in relation to the end of the war if independence I always think of that incredible scene in John Adams.

If I remember correctly, the three of them were all related by blood as well. I know Godwinsson and Wilhelm was at least. So in essence it was just a family feud that got a little bit out of hand. As for the german atomic bomb, there was a fear, but as I recall, the material that Allies feared was to be used for atomic bombs, was in reality for german toothpaste.

One of the most interesting what ifs for me is what if the sinking of the White Ship in 1120 never happens? Assuming William Adelin survives to inherit the throne from Henry and establishes his own dynastic line,then Stephen of Blois does not usurp the throne, there is no Anarchy, the Plantagenets never take over from Stephen. All subsequent English and British history takes a different path.

Yes Soviet Union was bigger than the US, but they were also on a land border with Germany at the time of the invasion, they just needed to walk there. To get to the US you need thousands of ships making it harder. Plus, most people in the US were armed and many were even trained enough on the guns.

If you like the Rome part of this video I highly recommend the channel toldinstone. He has a 3 part video series on whether Rome was near an Industrial Revolution or not. He agrees with the consensus here that probably not. And I think that once you understand the cultural aspects better it makes a lot more sense why it wasn’t around the corner despite how advanced they were.

a crazy aspect of mesoamerican history is that there are eras where the city of tenochtitlan and the surrounding cities are the most populous cities on earth.

VTH saying he will make is Arguments after he watched his Argument on the Italy one , but then decides to not make those Arguments ….. 😂

The reason I emphasize so hard that William is a Viking if not a French conqueror is because William was anything but English which many people think he was

Great video, VTH. It's super hot outside where I live, so I'm grateful that you got a video for me to enjoy. Thanks!

8:37 Archimedes’ “The Method” already described calculus so that point against the scenario is lessened by a bit.

His vidéo about Napoléon invading England is so great you should watch it !

I'll add that any scenario involving an invasion of the United States taking place in the past 200 years is unrealistic for the reasons Cody mentioned. Germany and Japan were able to invade nearby countries (with Germany traveling by ground), but there would be no logical place for the Axis to stage an invasion like the Allies had with the UK unless they were also going to take Canada and/or Latin America.

In terms of the Roman Empire and life expectancy there are parts of modern Sudan that still have lower life expectancies than when it was part of the Roman Empire. With the caveat that you have adjust for infant mortality rates which are much lower everywhere in the modern day then they were back then.

With Alternate History, one needs to know the situation well enough to appreciate how changing the outcome could be possible. If you do not know what Woodrow Wilson did on foreign policy, understanding just how he was an idiot will be missed.

Funny thing is harold godwinson himself is danish. Making the argument "local saxons wont except viking rule" argument a bit tricky. Cuz they did for 100 years before the last saxon king edward the confessor ascended to english throne.

The point about Roman industrialization, and what makes the most common popular version of it implausible, is that there is a world of a difference between inventing something "in principle" (i.e. something that demonstrates and proves a concept) and making something practically useful out of it. Steam gimmicks have existed for thousands of years all over the world, but it still took until the early 1700s for the first actually useful steam engine (the Newcomen atmospheric engine) to come about. So while faster technological development and earlier steam power due to less progress being lost with the downfall of Western Rome is certainly possible, a leap from random Greeks making steam gimmicks to making actual steam engines is certainly a leap too far.

Germany, even at the height of its power could not even summon the logistics to invade across the ENGLISH CHANNEL to take an island (England) Japan tried to invade the Aleutian Islands and were repulsed by what amounted to national guard troops. Even if they could magic up those logistics the vast number of heavily armed civilians in nearly every state would have cut either and both invasion scenarios off at the knees. A humiliating peace negotiation maybe but neither nation had the logistics to pull off an invasion.

another thing cody forgot with WW1 was that honor actually mattered, I could've definitely see italy at LEAST staying neutral if austria gave up Istria which would prevent another meat grinder front opening up, it was controversial even then that italy joined the allies and even then italy was still punished for it, their names were smeared and stained for ww1. A good reference on that is the fact that italy lost nearly half a million people on just that front alone, let alone the german's side which would free up an unmeasurable amount of manpower for other campaigns

The thing about the Roman Empire industrializing, is that it lasts longer. CENTURIES upon centuries longer. And bit by bit, they reach the criteria for industrialization