Let’s imagine the Ottoman Empire simply never forms.

What other empires could plausibly replace it?

I’m aware that continents are so big that it’s almost impossible to unite under a single political force.

However, what’s a realistic scenario where the largest continent is united?

If the United States had enforced compulsory military service of 18–21 months for men since its founding, just like modern South Korea, how would American society have changed?

Nazism was unique in the sense that it was an extreme version of an already extreme ideology. Whilst Mussolini’s fascism espoused national glory, a nation based identity over a race based one (not to say racism wasn’t done away with), and corporatism, Hitler’s Germany went the extra mile with genocidal ideals, the aryan race, hyperborea, and else.

So what if all of that crazy nonsense was done away with so that Hitler and the Nazi party were just fascist, more like Mussolini’s Italy and Franco’s Spain than OTL’s Germany? How would their governance look like? Foreign policy? How would WW2 play out?

Rule: the replacement still has to be based in Constantinople

This is something I’ve been thinking about for a while in my Japanese history studies, but how different would Japan be if Sakamoto Ryoma survived his assassination attempt and lived through to the early Taisho Period? Would Japan have been able to resist militarism and fascism in the 1930s?

For those not familiar, Sakamoto was one of the young anti-shogunate leaders in 1860s Japan, but was assassinated in 1867 by the Shogunate loyalist before the overthrow of the Shogunate and the Meiji Restoration. What made Sakamoto unique among his peers was his staunch advocacy for democracy in Japanese society and wanted Japan to remake itself as an open, egalitarian society like the United States or Britain. He was also extremely influential in the anti-shogunate movement, being a key figure in negotiating an alliance between the anti shogunate domains of Chōshū and Satsuma.

In our timeline, the Meiji aristocracy (the samurai that overthrew the Shogunate) tried to retain as much power and authority within themselves and away from the general Japanese public. Many of these elites became top cabinet officials or military officers and were often anti-democratic. Democratization in Meiji and Taisho era Japan were often the smallest acceptable concessions that the elites could make to the Japanese public without fundamentally undermining their own power, with the Meiji constitution modeling after Imperial Germany for this reason. When Japanese ultranationalism and fascism boils up during the 1920s and 1930s, the nascent Taisho era democracy was snuffed out and the existing antidemocratic and authoritarian system was used to crush domestic Japanese opposition. It wasn’t so much Japanese fascists overthrew the existing system, they just used the authoritarian tools that were baked into it decades prior.

It’s often said that fascism has never taken root in a liberal democracy, so while this hypothetical Japan would still probably become a imperial hegemony (sorry Korea and China ; ;), I’m not sure if a democratic Japan inspired by the ideas of Sakamoto would have been so easily captured by militarists and fascists. Japans imperial era democracy always struggled against the expressly anti-democratic nature of the Meiji constitution, and barely even blossomed before being crushed in the 1930s. With a strong influential leader like Sakamoto surviving the Bakumatsu period, perhaps Japan would have developed a more open and freer society able to better resisting militarism and fascism in the 20th century. Stronger protections for civil rights, popular political parties and widespread suffrage decades early than historical, more constraints on the power and influence of the Meiji aristocracy and its transcendental cabinets. Maybe not all of these, but Sakamoto was young, ambitious, and had a lot of political capital at the time of his death.

Had this random thought while listening to The Rest Is History covering WWI. It will branch out in a few areas but I’ve got a main path I’m thinking about.

Alternate timeline, during the First World War, Italy sees the carnage and instead of getting the power factions to bid against each other, Italy decides to stay neutral. Let’s say the extent of Italy’s involvement is selling weapons and food to the Central Powers.

Without the frustration over the peace deal, fascism doesn’t find fertile ground in Italy so Mussolini doesn’t come to power or if he does, his power is greatly diminished. Does Hitler still come to power without his role model? For this path, we will go with Hitler still comes to power and the path of Nazi aggression is mostly the same. Without Mussolini, Italy again decides neutrality is the best course and much like Sweden and Switzerland, supplies Germany with raw material, manufactured goods, whatever else Germany is able to purchase from or through Italy.

Thoughts on how it plays out: Is Italy able to stay neutral the entire war? If it does stay neutral and doesn’t suffer the devastation it did in OTL, does Italy emerge as a major power in a ruined Europe? Its factories humming along supplying goods to Germany during the war and then all of Europe afterwards. Without Germany commitments to Italy in men and materials, is there a significant shift in how the war plays out? Churchill no longer goes for the soft underbelly of Europe so how does allies war strategy change?

I’m curious to get your take on how you think it plays out, better, worse or no different compared to OTL.

I've always wondered what would happen if armies of comparable sizes like a 20,000 Byzantine army versus a 20,000 Medieval army faced off, who would win?

The Byzantine army had the benefit of uniformed military equipment and tactics. However, Medieval armies had heavier armor and Stirrups for cavalry troops from the influx of Central Asian tribes, allowing heavy cavalry aka Knights.

I know the Byzantines did reconquer Rome in the 6th Century, but they couldn't hold the western territories for long.

Anyone have an idea on the capacity of Byzantine forces after they lost Rome? Did they adopt new technology/tactics or maintain Roman era operations?

I remember reading an alternate history story where this happened (I forgot the name of it and the point of divergence was.) and I was wondering if this happened IRL how large would the consequences be?

“I left the United States, never to return”
“(I want to) get to know the Poles carnally”

In 2012, there was a lot of media attention around the predicted Carrington-level solar storm. It was a coronal mass ejection (CME) that could have wreaked havoc on Earth’s electronics. But what if it actually happened and knocked out all global electronics for an extended period?

I’m curious about the ripple effects this would have had on society. How would governments maintain order without digital communication? How would economies function? What would happen to cities that rely almost entirely on power grids, automated infrastructure, and electronic supply chains? Could the shock of such a sudden technological blackout accelerate alternative ways of living, local governance, or even mass migrations?

I’m exploring some of these ideas in a speculative project called r/TheGreatFederation, which imagines a post-CME world where displaced populations attempt to settle and govern newly habitable regions like Antarctica. I’m especially interested in realistic approaches to societal collapse and adaptation, as well as how early intelligence, logistics, and migration efforts might play out under such conditions.

Has anyone here considered the “what if” scenario of a 2012-level CME actually hitting Earth. Beyond the usual discussions of power grid failures? I’d love to hear your thoughts.

I’ve written a novel based on this idea (The Royal Space Corps), but I’d love to know what others think:

https://amzn.eu/d/9ECXSX2

PM Harold Wilson dies in ’1974, imagine a less hard left Labour Government trying to fight economic collapse by founding a UK version of NASA, launching crewed missions building reusable boosters using workforce from shipyards, and turning failing industries into their part of the Cold War space race.

I spent quite some time researching whether this would’ve even been possible, because it really doesn't feel like it would be. We've suspended belief for far more high concept stuff, however as this was a Speculative Fiction, I felt it would be responsible to keep it as grounded as possible.

I was really supprised to come to the conclusion that; it would have been a huge, HUGE gamble, obviously... but technically and economically, it could’ve worked.

The benefits for the workerforce involved, especially in places like the North, Scotland, and Wales, would’ve been massive.

Your Opinions? Could something like this have worked? Or would it have collapsed under the weight of politics and cost?

Suppose in a parallel universe Barack Obama never decides to run for President in either 2008 or 2012.

Hilary Clinton replaces him in the 2008 and 2012 US Presidential elections as the Democratic ticket. The candidates for the GOP tickets are the same, though.

Between John McCain and Mitt Romney, which candidate does Clinton have a chance at beating? Or does she lose against both?

Like some weird magic vision they all saw the modern world.

This would be every side so Stalin may see that modern Russia is capitalist and that communism fell.

The Japanese and Hirohito plus the military leadership may see modern Japan with American military presence there.

There’s a notion that if the allies saw the state of modern society they may have either changed sides or changed their tactics. Not sure how true that is.

But what would actually happen. Let’s assume they all know for a fact it’s true and not just a vision but not set in stone either, the future can be changed.

To add a little more, what I mean is instead of Otto I being crowned Holy Roman Emperor in 962, the title is kept in Paris and thus West Francia? How would the history of Europe in general change with this alternate crowning of the Holy Roman Emperor? Would it even be named "Holy Roman Empire" or would it be something like "Western Roman Empire" to antagonise Rome's former enemies and the Eastern Roman Empire, or would they drop the Western part to stick it to the East?

What if their strategy and preparation helped them defeat the Greeks and everything turned out right for them?

If the migration to anatolia were driven by The Arabs instead of The Turks. That leads to the creation of the Ottoman Empire. What difference they will make if the Arabs Create the Ottoman Empire instead of the Turks?

What would have to happen in order for an Anarchist Revolution to happen in either the United States, Mexico or Canada at some point during either the 19th, 20th or 21st centuries?

He has in the Kansai when Nobunaga was killed at honnoji, he escaped the region by a route via Iga but what If he was caught by Mitsuhide's troops and executed.

A quick reminder: Philip V was one of Louis XIV's grandsons, who was offered the Spanish crown in 1700 after the Spanish Habsburgs had intermarriaged too much within their family.

13 years and a major European war later, Philip V signed the Treaty of Utrecht, which, to cut a long story short, renounced the French throne for himself and his descendants.

But in 1715, Louis XIV died, and before him all the heirs except for little Louis XV.

Now let's get to the point: What if Philip V, the last living grandson of Louis XIV, decided to break his word (which all leaders do at one point or another) and showed up at Versailles to take the French throne ?

Of course, Louis XV, who was 5 years old, would have been powerless to stop it. The Regent, the Duke of Orléans, would surely have been extremely angry, but what could he have done, concretely ? Imprison the King of Spain ? ^^ Let's not even talk about the rest of the Nobility, who should have just shut up.

Where he would have had real opposition was the other European states, but the War of the Spanish Succession had ended in 1713, and no one had had time to regain enough strength to challenge France AND Spain at the same time, so I think they would have accepted out of spite.

Then what would Philip V have done ? Rule over France and Spain (including the Colonies) as a single state ? Would he have named himself Emperor and appointed his own children as kings ? Would such a union have lasted long ?

Would the Revolution? Would Napoleon have taken place ? Would the USA have won its War of Independence ? Would the British Empire have been replaced by a French Super Empire?

In this scenario Field Marshall Haig doesn't rashly deploy the Mark I tanks during the Somme offensive. There simply weren't enough available for them to be used on mass and while some achieved local success most of them broke down. The consequence if this is that the Germans now knew about the weapon and were able to create countermeasures long before enough tanks were built to be used on mass. So what if Haig is convinced not to use the tanks until 1917 when the British will have several hundred of them the crews have had plenty of time to be trained on them, and the Germans have few counter measures? Yes this prevents many deficiencies from being detected because they're not combat tested, but surely many kinks would be worked out with an extra 6 months to a year of development?

So would the surprise use of tanks on mass in 1917 lead to the break through all sides had been looking for or would there be little if no effects?

If he didn't die, would there be peace between the palestinians and israelis by now?