I think I should say this, I made this whole video in less than 24 hours because I started this whole thing the day before it was due and pulled an all nighter lmao I did the exact same thing for my junior year APUSH final project, I’ll prob post that here sometime lol
I have to make a little correction, Italy wouldn't join the crimean war, Piemont joined so to convince the French during the treaties to help unite the peninsula, with an italy already united there wouldn't be need for that
"A historically Romanian region Hungary had possession of" Even before hungarians occupied the Carpathian Basin (when the huns were raiding Europe) there were only Scythians and Goths and Vlachs only started to really populate the land 2 hundred years after the region was declared as a part of the Hungarian kingdom ( in the year 1000 it was in dispute with the pechenegs who were Turkic) and only because the mongol invasion of 1241 strongly depopulated it and there was a necessity of settlers to keep society functioning. The region was legally and culturally hungarian at least until the complete annexation to the Austrian empire which means it was rightfully hungarian for at least 700 years.
9:49 Transylvania was never a Romanian territory in that point besides for a year during Michael the Brave's reign. Hungary owned Transylvania from 895-1526, then it became an Ottoman vassal for more than a century and it was mostly ruled by Hungarian princes, then it became Austrian territory up till 1867, when Austria-Hungary was formed. In 1918 Romania occupied the territory, and in 1920 it officially became a Romanian province by the Treaty of Trianon. Hungarian was the majority in Transylvania up till the early 15th century or earlier. They most likely emigrated due to the rising Ottoman influence, or corrupt nobles and high taxes or perhaps due to the high development of Transylvania. But they were mostly met with resentment and hate due to their religion being Orthodox Christian, and Hungarians were Catholic Christians. Anyway, most of what we know about the ethnical history of Transylvania is speculation.
Yes, but most of the people totally believe the Romanian (and many other surrounding nation's) propaganda about the evil, oppressing Mongol-Hungarian occupiers, and they are very loud and only Hungarians try to say opposite things (which looks like they just want to defend themselves, and the 5-6 other countries know the truth).
Hello, I’d like to add to the discussion to this year-old video. Firstly, the conquest of Africa was actually not beloved or sought after by the merchants within there. They felt more confident in their own ability to trade and feared borders would reduce profit. They still intended to be exploitative, certainly, but the Scramble for Africa is not as foregone as it may first seem. A lot of it was driven by insecurities back home, where the established French and British feared German economic encroachment, while the Germans feared if they did not stake territorial claims their trade would be seized by the navally superior British. This is still seen in how the Belgian Congo was largely permitted on terms of it being a free trade zone. How does 1848 affect this? Essentially, the German economy would be given a “head start” on it’s global development, so prior to the means for map-painting becoming available, some sort of understanding of multinational commerce in Africa would likely be developed. Furthermore, a more republican Europe would be more skeptical of a Belgian king’s mad personal ambitions. I see this world’s Africa still being exploited and turned against itself by European interests, and certainly a realm of competition, but with far more granularity. Secondly, WWI is certainly not as assured, though still possible. A large factor in why the alliance networks were triggered so rapidly was the experience from the rapid Prussian victory in the Franco-Prussian and even Austro-Prussian war. Essentially, the conclusion from this was that whichever side mobilized and attacked first would win, a concept not adequately reconsidered as everyone’s war plans involved more and more men and material moving more densely through deadlier terrain. If the most recent major European conflict was the Crimean War, then perhaps leaders would calculate war to be expensive, bloody, and of limited use, making the alliance networks more negotiable. Or perhaps there’s a different conflict which sets a military paradigm. I still think the porous boundaries of Eastern Europe, running from the Baltic to the Balkans, would confound the ethnolinguistic nation-state order which would be even more popular in this timeline. What would the fate of the Poles be, especially if the German Confederation did not integrate them into their state? My fiction running in this revolutionarily optimistic theme sees a major war by the 1860s. I think the Polish question would remain a difficult one, as the Polish territories of Prussia were excluded from the German Confederation. I see a Polish uprising in Russia supported by Germany, who perhaps hopes for a proud liberation war akin to the Italian experience against Austria, only to have to struggle against a Russia far less willing to budge. The Balkans would be so crazy that you can frankly pick whoever you want to be on each side, or even a three or four-way conflict. Perhaps a major coalition defeats Germany for upsetting the balance of power, pushing us towards our own world. However, I do see Germany more likely winning against Russia. An easy war and German hegemony probably creates a “soft borders” Eastern Europe. A difficult war and negotiated peace, especially if everyone is trying to push forward their own favorite Balkan nation, probably sees far harder borders and many ethnic exchanges, or worse. There is a lot that is possible with this scenario, whether the impact of 1848 is seen as more liberal, or more nationalist. I am optimistic; however the 1848 revolutionaries succeeded would not be forgotten, and I do not see governments being as willing or able to push their subjects down non-self-interested paths. However, thank you for the scenario and your video! I will investigate your channel!
One thing of advice when talking about each country in such a video is when glossing over the map like when you were talking about the social changes within each country, you should outline the borders at the time of rather than just showing it blankly on the map. We both know where they are but others might not and especially to know the current borders of what is being talked about. using countryballs again at that point might've also been better. Overall the first two-thirds of your video are much better than the last I'm thinking you might've been on a time crunch lol.
I was def on a time crunch I had to do this in less than 24 hours for a final exam grade lmao But I did it and got a perfect score which is awesome. Thx for the advice man!
The Crimean war was started by Napoleon the third, gaining the title of protector of all Christian in the Ottoman Empire unless this alternate France push for the The Crimean would most likely not happen
How could be Transylvania historically Romanian if Hungary existed way before Romania. In the Romanian language there is a lot of Albanian element what clearly show the Romanians migrated from Southern Italy through Albanian territory. In that time Hungary ruled Transilvania for centuries already. You know history is written by the winners but it doesn't make the rewriten history true.
I feel/think that Italy would have stayed in TWO main pieces, a northern Piedmont-Sardinia, and a southern Two Sicilies. There is a BIG difference between them! Austria-Hungary would have relied on social inertia and enlightened self-interest to keep going with an Ausgleich done almost two decades earlier (1849 rather than 1867). Do be aware too the "national" groups aren't as spacially-segregated as allied propaganda made you think; there was some intermarriage too. This sort of thing can breed social inertia as in "might as well not upset the applecart!". Also consider if Bismarck (1815-98) had died young or Schwarzenberg (1803-53) of Austria not had the stroke that killed him; no Bismarck you would have had Gross- rather than Klein-Deutsch. A german Confederation lasting to more recent times. The peoples of Central Europe NOT organizing themselves on nation-states basis 1919 and later which led to much trouble. For the 1848 revolutions consult a book called "Restoration, Revolution, Reaction" or something like that. Its thesis was that the 1848 revolts were caused by societal problems which the bourgeois mishandled, allowing the conservatives time to figure out what was going wrong and come up to ways to fix it. Also look into Metternich's career for an realization that there were real problems to be addressed so the Old Order would be in no way completely. Note that in France the Bourbons kept the Code Napoleon and NEVER restored the Ancient Law of France, the French version of the English Common Law, or the law courts of France that had been around over 700 years. In short, there's more stuff to be done meaning more work on your theses on the 1848 revolutions---and don't let Marx overawe you! Good luck--because nowadays is not a good time to try to make a living at History in this Woke Era. Yes, this was a year ago. In closing, time to tell of a little personal tragedy I learned of. About 25 years ago I bought a book "English Investment in American Railways 1838-98". Its editor was a Professor Hidy I had had for one course. The book was written by one of his women graduate students who years ago had dropped out of academia to marry and have a family, then returned after were grown-up to resume her academic career and this thesis. Unfortunately she became terminally ill and died; the book was intended as a sort of a memorial process using what materials she had gotten and what writing she had done. But the tragedy occurred in that reading her footnotes she remarked that she was trying to find the explanation for a particular action that had happened---the tragic thing that in my extensive reading I had learned her answer---but she had been dead now 30 years! Eventually that will happen with you!
You forgot to include Slovenia and Istria to Germany cuz there apart of austria and why is Alsace-Lorraine apart of Germany, the Germans got that region during the Franco Prussian war which wouldn't exist in this timeline and they might get during the new WW1
I have a question: why is present-day Czechia is part of Germany in the alternate timeline? And why does the Austrians in this timeline hates the Hungarians?
the majority of the czechs revolutionaries did not ask for an indipendent state, but for autonomy within Germany, so, if the revolutions would succeed, that would most likely happen to the czech lands
@@LJP2003 there where always tension bewtween the austrians and the hungarians, they were occupiers for the hungarians which they wanted out, out of 1848 there where more revolutions to brak away from the hasburgs, hungarians always hated them from the begining, untill the 1861 aggrement where the austro-hungarian monarchy was created(which was mainly because the 1848 revolution, and the passive resistance from the hungarians), after that the relationship with the habsburgs and the hungarians where kinda good, but before that the hungarians wanted the germans out for centuries, But hungarians alwass where a rival to the habsburgs and the germans, the first ever reorded hungarian swearing in a sentencce was a hungarian telling off the germans
Oh I didn’t realize he mentioned Transylvania, I think if Transylvania revolted against Hungary they’d go with Romania, but Wallachia and Moldavia would definitely unite, and push to unite with Transylvania like in this timeline
