This took far too long to make, I've been working on it since June. Of course if the lakes didn't exist it probably would have had far greater ramifications in Earth's climate, but this video is to show how simple changes to the map can have drastic results. I know it's ridiculous, you know it is. Lets watch the butterfly effect on full display.
No offence but this is bull. You're thinking on a way to short of a scale. You should probably have a look at the history of Long Island and Staten Island and then at the previous interglacial period.
I don't think it would make that much of a difference since gunpowder ended up spreading throughout Eurasia within a few centuries anyways, and it wouldn't be until the late 14th century that gunpowder weapons actually developed to the point where they could start to replace the roles of traditional weapons.
Then Russia probably would have kept Alaska instead of selling it if they were physically connected. But it's such a remote and desolate part of the world, I don't really see how this would change much?
@@retrowave69 Would it have escalated beyond "a cold war"? 'Sleepless in Seattle" would have been a cold war movie instead of a romantic comedy if Russia deployed nukes in Alaska though :p
At first I was thinking. "No great lakes?" Easy, no canada and maybe some southern states stay independent countries." Then I realized there was no 'Merica
Hard to know really. Without the great lakes the east coast could have become a colonial race like the caribbean, and maybe we would have dozens of tiny countries instead.
To be honest if this happened there would in my opinion India and the North American regions would be Africa and the Middle East a massive fucking mess.
Michigan wouldn't be a mitten to warm its people during the Winter. Michigan wouldn't be a Michigan, a wouldn't have a reason to get tourists to visit Michigan. Detroit will be even worse.
I think the lake effect would leave most of modern populated canada and the interior US states north of Kentucky and Southern Oklahoma (mountain barrier) to the Rockies with either a Siberian or sub boreal climate (ie eastern europe). That Teays river system may very well have frozen in the winter like the Volga
4 года назад
As a Michigander, this video’s existence makes me feel appreciated
you wouldn't even realize that Lake Eire was even missing...only a vague notion that your reality was off by some strange aspect that you should have spotted earlier but somehow missed
As someone from Michigan, this is awesome! I'd like to add a modern mention to the importance of the great lakes, and that's the transportation of ore. The ability to ship millions of tons of iron ore from the wisconsin area faster and more effectively than by train to steel mills and manufacturers in Detroit, Ohio, etc was a major reason that the US was able to mobilize so incredibly efficiently during the World Wars. There were significant defensive measures taken to prevent Germans from bombing the locks from Superior, so without the lakes, railroads could have been much more easily destroyed, crippling the American war economy, and possibly leading to a much less effective America in the World Wars.
probably speak franklich or anglois, a rich culture of complaining and doing nothing about it until its way too late, enemies on every border and the industrial revolution wouldve secured total world domination.
This might be a magnum opus of yours. This is everything this series should be. Thank you for all you do. As someone who does tons of history and political work- these are beyond relaxing to experience. They are everything we wish we could do and more. This is certainly a crown jewel.
Hayden’s Mobile games gameplay nah, the rising sea levels would fill the basin. It’s an interesting topic really, as it seems like the opposite should happen.
Damn Cody, you’re really developing into quite the mature historian and this video proves it! I’m glad to have grown with you over the years as I’ve been subscribed to you for 5+ years now I think! Keep up the good work and continue your book series cuz I bought you book a few months ago and it has a LOT of potential to grow into a massive universe IF you choose to pursue it!
Don't you think Spain would've taken most of what we know as French Louisiana if the French hadn't moved as far. And if Napoleon didn't exist, Spain would've kept its colonial empire for longer, and maybe even taken English land.
I don't think so. The Spanish government / Spanish Crown was in deep trouble. The Napoleon wars, the revolutions that followed were just the final blow to Spanish power. I like to compare it to the fall of the HRE. It was an inevitability at that time, Napoleon was the last straw but not the root cause.
@@MstAsterix Spain's decline began during the second half of the 1600s by France's continuous wars against Spain's empire. If they hadn't had as much colonial territory as they did in our timeline, they wouldn't have been as able to defeat Spain in Europe, much less in the Americas
If Titanic didn't sink it would become just another early 20th century ocean liner. It would likely be drafted with its two sister ships and the big Cunard liners into the Royal Navy. If it is drafted as a troopship it would likely be torpedoed and sunk, making it the second largest ship to sink during the great war (after its sister Britannic of course). If it is drafted as a hospital ship it would probably survive the war and re enter transatlantic service with Olympic, Mauretania, and Aquitania. The war would still take a major toll on the profits of the White Star and Cunard lines, and would still probably be forced to merge by the British government like in our timeline. However this is where I believe the biggest difference would arise. At the start of the great war the White Star line was already weakened economically by Titanic, and thus when White Star merged with Cunard it received a substantially smaller stake in the new "Cunard-White Star Line" than its rival. If Titanic didn't sink, I believe White Star would receive close to an equal stake in the company. In our timeline, Cunard's division bought the dwindling White Star assets out of the company, and took over rebranding the company back to "Cunard Line". Immediately Cunard began retiring many of the older liners like Olympic and Mauretania. If White Star had stuck around for longer, we would probably see much longer service lives of these liners, now including Titanic. They would probably begin the retirement process in the late 30s, but as we know WW2 would break out. At this point due to their age, the ships would most likely be sold off completely to the Royal Navy. Their fates in this war are really up in the air. Aquitania and the new RMS Queen Mary managed to survive the war in our timeline, so who knows. If Titanic survives WW2 it would likely be scrapped at the end of the war or turned into some sort of recreational body like Queen Mary eventually was. In the end, Titanic would be notable, but likely outshined by liners like Queen Mary, Lusitania, and even her two sisters.
If tobacco never existed, the Jamestown colony would've failed, and the colonization of America would've taken longer than in our timeline, which means that colonization would've only sped up after the introduction and economic viability of cotton production started some time later leading to American independence happening much later, if at all because Britain could've become too powerful for Americans to resist in the 19th century, but the American revolution could've been partly motivated by Britain threatening the planters' economic interests over the abolition of slavery, unless the planters' were financially compensated for their loss over abolition. The need for a cash crop to replace tobacco could've led to the invention of the cotton gin much sooner than in our timeline, which was what made cotton more commercially viable. The lack of tobacco would've also delayed the expansion of slavery into mainland America since slave labor was used to grow tobacco. And the West Indies would've been more contested by Spain and Britain over control of the lucrative sugar trade to make up for much of mainland America being economically unviable at the time
Very much so correct,and the french revolution would happen as well. The impetus for the war was more the english civil war then the american independence proclamation.
@@heraadrian7764 But what about the debt the French incurred by helping the American Colonies? Also remember if the Seven Years war is JUST the Seven Years war than French defeat would be the same as the several European only wars that occurred before. Redistricting until the next war. It wouldn't have been the birth of the British hegemony.
@@Sakraida82 Why is the british hegemony any concern like today they were izolationist concerning the european continent. France is more important to the modern world because of it's class conflict that made the modern equalitarian model this was made so, by progress în industry ,,if we can live better why can we not live better,, any one would think.History would change a bit but the fall of the european empires is a give and by there end we go back to tradition democracy. Meaning even if the monarchy did not die from overspending the culmination of wars would make a ww1 eventualy. People know of the democratic thinking of the ancients were do you thinks the congress got there ideas from the roman and the greek thinkers. Funny is that the Roman Empire(Republic) was build by representative democracy and died by tirany.
@Reilly Pryma The American Revolution was a proxy war betwen Britain and France like the USA and USSR fighting in coreean,the same to be franc, a reality they don't teach in the vermacular of american education, so yes the french would try to support every try to oust the brits. Maybe no Napoleon but if you heard of zetgeist , we still get some one similar, i mean, not of nobility but of common origin taking power making it a free for all to take political power,France being most likelly but not obligatory. Europe was a powder cheag so no killing like morons is out of the question,at least how were more sane with the Union.
I legitimately want to see a mini series about each and every one of althistoryhub's videos, they sound like genuinely interesting scenarios to explore on a more personal level.
Bruh, I'm from Southern Ontario, the Great lakes are my LIFE. Huron to the North, Erie to the South, and Ontario to the East. And I currently live in Toronto.
Imagine a book set in this alternate timeline's 1800s during the civil war between the Confederates and the UK/Thirteen Colonies. That'd be a whole new twist of alternate history books.
We Ontarians would lose our awesome looking peninsula of Southern Ontario without the great lakes. People of Michigan, you aren't alone. Edit: It really like it when someone talks about my home region. Edit 2: This video is really good
Amen :D I'm from Chicago, far from the Atlantic Ocean, but Lake Michigan feels like an ocean of its own; only better; swimming in it doesn't give one a salty tongue :D
This was certainly a hell of a butterfly effect. Along similar lines, what if the Western Interior Seaway still existed in modern times, dividing North America into Appalachia and Laramidia?
You mean like the sea in dinosaur times? If so, I think you've turned West Virginia into a new Britain or Japan when they break off of whoever colonizes them
But nobody would likely care about them so very little people would actually go there. So the areas of New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, and Prince Edward Island from our timeline would most likely part of some large colony while Newfoundland and Labrador would exist at a small extent in this alternate timeline
@@declannewton2556 The second most valuable staple of what would become Canada in the 17th century was cod. Without a means to acquire beaver pelts the French would have put more effort into acquiring and holding Newfoundland. One of the Iberville brothers did capture it but reverted back as part of a treaty. If it were of greater value the French might have been more determined to keep it.
@@johnkilmartin5101 Yes, fishing would Canada's greatest asset in this timeline, but fishing in a wider sense isn't that big of an industry. Very few colonists would go to these colder areas for work that pays less in comparison to the fertile river valleys and lucrative farms of the Southern colonies. Again, only a small portion of Newfoundland and Labrador would be colonized, based mainly along the coast since there would be no need to go into the interior.
One thing I dislike about most alternate history or time travel in fiction is that the message almost always that if you change things just a little, things turn out differently - almost always for the worse. It's that last part I have trouble with. Do we really think *this* is the best possible world? This video was nice because it didn't turn out worse, only very, very different.
@@Coygon I've always thought the same thing but I guess there wouldn't be much tension in a movie if messing with history actually caused a better outcome
"Could be worse". Guy we literally live in a world where you have an infinite amount of performers on your magic glowing slab of glass and can order anything to be delivered to your door from anywhere on the flipp'n planet. Also what you consider bad or good and how you weigh how good or bad something is, is not universally true. For example: Does America existing outweigh WWII not happening? Who the hell knows.
Yeah I always find that message of “this is the best timeline” to be cliche. Wouldn’t it be more interesting if we had the Main Character change the timeline to a arguably better one but ends up erasing a family member?
Russia likely would've carved up a part of Northern Korea (or perhaps have taken all of it like the Japanese did) and the Manchuria region of China for themselves.
I think that your biggest oversight was how you really underplayed France's interest in the Louisiana exploration. If France couldn't get involved in Canada and the great lakes as easily, they probably would have pursued traveling up the Mississippi more than in our timeline. Also the tension between France and England would have probably boiled over at a different time, not necessarily the 7 years war, but perhaps a different conflict a bit later or something. It's always a bit hard to predict different conflicts since the lack of something means that people didn't have the same memories. Of course, butterfly effect style, realistically, if the Great Lakes didn't exist you can't predict any specific person being born if their life or there ancestor's life could, however remotely, have been affected by this reality.
@@Spongebrain97 great point, I am pointing out also because of the automobile industry being connected with the rest of the world and the glaciers leaving behind many valuable minerals that caused the iron and copper rushes of the UP to the point that at one point 75% of the worlds iron came from the UP and 95% (!!!) Of copper
Agree. This not well thought out in many aspect. For one thing, all of the water in the norther region still has to drain though the St. Lawrence basin. The most logical idea is that the North-South division as it is understand today might take a very different form. But keep in mind, no matter what, there would still have to be a huge river system many waterways in what is now the Great Lakes region.
@@Devin_Stromgren There are more than two oceans to see, and even ignoring that, the Atlantic and Pacific look different enough to tell them apart based on the colour.
As someone who was born and raised in lower Michigan (near the thumb) and spent many years in the Upper Peninsula of Michigan, I feel like a part of me was gone when the Great Lakes were removed. The alternate history shows how crucial the Great Lakes are to our current way of life. Thanks for that reminder.
Or if France went further into Germany in 1939 than just a few miles and reached and maybe cross the Rhine after taking the Rhineland. They met little if any resistance because the Germany army was to busy in Poland
@@Canada1994 No. France's army was built for slow trench warfare. They had the numbers and training, but not the strategy or even tanks, which were also built for trench warfare. France could only pose a MAJOR threat with the entire British army backing them. Once France gains a bit of ground, Germany finishes Poland, tells Italy that there's a prime opportunity to attack France in the south and France still falls. There may or may not be a battle of Dunkirk (or at least the alt version) and Hitler gives Italy Southern France since they attacked sooner and I bet would reach Nice before the French Army pushes them back.
@@superkamiguru6856 Mussolini would've stayed neutral still. He went against Hitler's word and refused to join the war when Poland was invaded. He knew that the Italian army was still in poor shape (his experts were telling him that Italy would not be ready until 1941 or 1942). He only joined the war because he thought he would only fight for a few weeks, France falls, Britain negotiates peace, and he gets some spoils of war without really fighting. Italy lacked the economic strength for a long war (they still didn't recover from the invasion of Ethiopia) that's why he waited until France was days from falling
@@zrader1 he did, he told them to retreat if the French showed any resistance since Germany's army was still very small at that time (I don't know if it was still on the 100 thousand limit under Versailles or not). Germany used psychological warfare when they remilitarized the Rhineland by making the German Army look larger by constantly moving troops in and out of the Rhineland to make it look like more were coming when in fact it was the same troops over and over again
Nova but Hitler only came to power playing on the weaknesses that the Great Depression had exposed mixed with the conditions of the treaty of Versailles, but I feel that there would still be a conflict just on a smaller scale to the ~75million deaths WW2 caused
What if WW1 never happened, and the defining Cold War of the 20th century was England and France, both with nuclear weapons, huge militaries, and proxies all over the world?
If you look at European history war is a common thing very evident if you look at the combatants and there nation and objectiv goals. Ww 1th to 2th to the Cold War ,these wars were one single war to be sincere.Most of the same.
More like the whole concept of Canada is pretty much compromised with this alternate timeline, with Canada becoming this sort of Northern United States-Canada hybrid.
Saliva OH, I like the Christianity one. Given the influence Christianity had on history, the world might look drastically different had it never split from Judaism.
Акежан Толеухан the Germans spoke different dialects in each city. It is hard to call the Scandinavians more differential, when they used to speak the same dialect, Norse.
Cody: And for you Canadians, you already know how central these lakes are. Me who's lived almost exclusively in Manitoba and Alberta, neither of them close to the Great Lakes: (though if Lake Agassiz were still a thing, I'd have been born underwater...)
@@CanuckGod I mean, most of the population lives in Ontario and Quebec, which rely heavily on the Great lakes. Canada could have been insanely powerful if Lake Winnipeg was much larger, and had a canal to the Great Lakes.
@@enotsnavdier6867 Fair enough, though I still cringe when others assume Ontario & Quebec = all of Canada. Granted, the majority of them do live there, but there's still over 12 million people in Western Canada, and another couple million in the Maritimes.
@@CanuckGod I do get it, the west has gotten the shaft for a long time. I love that we let in so many immigrants, but I wish we were better at incentivizing them to live in the parries. Also the Maritimes are an interesting issue that is difficult to solve.
Something I wanted was Paradox to make the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence navigable. France would had never gotten the land it had in history without them.
You should do a part 2. Discussing how the world was fundamentally transformed by the industrial colossus that developed on the lakes in the late 19th & 20th centuries.
Very interesting video but I can point out two things of the top of my head that might challenge your assumptions. 1: Unless there was a great change in the climate pattern, all the land that makes up Canada and where the Great Lakes no longer were, would still get enough rain and snow that a major river system would form. Whether it flowed east to the Gulf of St Lawrence, north to the arctic ocean, or connected south with the Mississippi River would depend on the new topography of the area. My guess is that the new major rivers would flow in all three directions. 2: The French still have New Orleans which connects and controls access to the Mississippi river. So instead of trying to colonize the east coast where there were already British and Dutch settlements, wouldn't they just use the river and create a "New France" along the banks of the Mississippi and associated rivers? A new Quebec City where St. Louis is, a new Montreal near where the that new river system you mentioned connected to the Mississippi, even a new Toronto up where Minneapolis and St Paul are? You would end up with a east coast English colony, a middle American French one and a Southwestern Spanish state. Eventually all three would become independent and North America would be home to three very different countries than they are today. Probably a 4th in the Pacific Northwest as well.
This video gave me an interesting idea: What if Germany was allied with the UK instead of Austria in WW1? (If the war even breaks out in that scenario or maybe it's also just very different) Btw. I think this video shows the biggest butterfly effect I have ever heard of. What a lot of stuff the existence of a body of water can effect, amazing.
Easy the war wouldn't break out, because Austria would be staged against Germany, Britain and Russia. In this timeline the death of Franz Ferdinand would lead to a civil war and the collapse of Austrian-Hungarian state.
This was really interesting to watch - the depth that you go into in this video is really impressive: I love how much I learn about actual history from your Alternate History videos. Thank you :-)
I can tell this video was hard to put together considering all the different seemingly unrelated things that all weave together to form the modern human geography of north america and europe but it came out incredibly understandable despite all that confusion... Great video!
This may be an inconvenient question, but what if the opposite was true...not only do the Great Lakes exist, but they’re joined by a stable and sustained Lake Agassiz?
Well it'd be waaaayyy more arduous as the Pacific lengths about twice that of the Atlantic. Which means you can double all the odds that Europeans had coming to America as well as all the odds of staying in trade and supply from their mother nations. And consequently if they eventually revolted from said nations their chances of winning would be doubled as well.
It wouldn't be called Canada since it's a native name picked up by the French during the St.Lawrence exploration. Even if the southern states get independent, there would still be a British confederation(like the 1867 act) eventually that would cover a huge part of North America.
lajya01 so? Just because the name wouldn’t be there doesn’t mean that my point is invalid. I’m saying that there would be people in Canada. The British would have used the rivers from the Hudson Bay to expand west. They would’ve been able to reach the Rockies because of the north and south Saskatchewan rivers and the bow and elbow rivers. The name might be different but there would still be a canada
@@johngibbons7724 But it wouldn't be the Canada we all know and love today. The culture could be drastically different and probably just be more British than anything. There would be no Canadians. Just North Americans who all speak English. Just one big territory of British settlements. Hell it may even turn out to be a Commonwealth but encompassing most of North America rather than just Canada. If not for the great lakes everything that makes Canada what you see it as wouldn't exist entirely. Many Major cities wouldn't pop up either. And if the southern British colonies did rebel it'd just be like an American civil war but with the North being massive and loyal to the crown.
A fascinating concept, if there were a book about this that goes into further details, I would definitely buy it. Also, how about a 'What if the Mediterranean Sea didn't exist' video?
