Three assassination hypotheticals for you
- Thread starter WolfBear
- Start date
It was british politic from at least 1738 - form coalition against stronger country on continent.Count Bolonbroke,if i remember correctly.Probably not.
Sergeant Foley
Well-known member
Would it prevent Czar Nicholas and his family from being slaughtered?
Yes to form defensive coalitions. Not to actually choose in most cases to initiate a war. That's like saying if a homeowner beats up a burgular who breaks into his house and attacks him when discovered is guilty of assault. Britain definitely didn't want war in 1914 but many recognised that if war came and our allies were attacked and defeated quickly Britain would be very exposed. Fortunately the invasion of Belgium made the issue clear for the vast bulk of the population in the UK.
Makes one wonder if Britain would have entered the war on the other side had Germany not attacked Belgium but France done so.
Don't know. It would definitely cause political problems in London as Germany was the clear hostile threat but in this case France would be breaching Belgium neutrality. A lot would have depended on the circumstances but it would alienate a good chunk of public and informed opinion in the UK.
I think so
England do not have allies,only affairs.
If WW1 start 10 years later,when Russian Empire would be much stronger,then London would support germans.And i do not blame them - their politics of always beating stronger country in Europe was logical.
Back to topic - i had 3 candidates:
1.Machomet - kill him before he start his religion.We would have normal Middle East ruled by cyvilized persians.
2.Dzyngis Khan - his empire falled after few generations,but he made one thing lasting - he murdered russians ,and his descendents turned them into muscovites.Could you imagine world with normal Russia?
3.Frederick the great thief - kill him in 1756,just after he started war.Prussia destroyed as state,and - we have normal germans,not genocidal idiots.
Althought,if i kill Machomet,at least Freferick would probably never be born.
Last edited:
If you kill Mohammad then while there might be an equivalent conqueror Genghis Khan won't be born.
If such an act prevented a new monotheistic region starting, which isn't necessarily certain then there is no saying what the world would be like by now. Quite possibly the dominant Christian sect would be some form of Orthodoxy as Byzantium would have much more power and influence. Its likely that Charlemagne would be butterflied and until something like the Mongols turn up Constantinople stays the centre of by far the most powerful Christian state.If you kill Mohammad then while there might be an equivalent conqueror Genghis Khan won't be born.
True about stronger ERE - but,since they would be fighting Persia,France and other western countries woud remain catholic.
But popes would be weaker,and Hungary would be butterflied,becouse we would have there still some slavic states.
But,maybe no string GreatMoravia? or much stronger GratMoravia? maybe orthodox GreatMoravia?
so many possibilities !
But,some kind of Dzingis khan would come - and there i would kill him!!!
If you kill Mohammad then while there might be an equivalent conqueror Genghis Khan won't be born.
We could actually see global Christian dominance in such a TL, with Christianity making inroads into Persia, East Asia, Southeast Asia, parts of South Asia, et cetera. But of course there could also be interesting butterflies in regards to the discovery and colonization of the Americas, since there won't be a hostile Muslim world preventing land travel between Europe and China/India in this TL.
Of course, it's possible that some other religion will be created and become prominent somewhere worldwide in place of Islam in this TL, but it's very far from guaranteed.
Agree that the west will probably emerge as 'Catholic' i.e. distinctly different from the eastern Orthodox as its in the interests of the leaders of those states to remain separate from the Orthodox church as that would be controlled from Constantinople and hence likely continued to be under imperial domination. Its very likely going to be different from OTL catholic church because of so many butterflies and Italy/Rome may be under imperial control but there will be separate doctrines from the east.
How the ERE develops would depend on many butterflies. If they still defeat the Sassanids in their final war as OTL then the latter is likely to collapse but whether the ERE can recover without the Muslim attacks and find at least a temporary solution to its own doctrinal divisions would be the key points. Plus of course how capable and responsible both its leaders and its opponents are.
But,some kind of Dzingis khan would come - and there i would kill him!!!
So ATP the time traveling assassin.
So ATP the time traveling assassin.
He better bring back Polska kielbasa along with instructions on how to make it lol!
Then the whole world can enjoy the glories of Polish food centuries earlier in comparison to real life lol! Its likely without Islam emerging and assuming that no other monotheistic faith fills that gap that versions of Christianity would spread much wider - or simply maintaining the lands they held ~636 would mean a much larger region under Christian control. Without Islam its likely that Christianity would be contenting with Buddhism and possibly some other faiths for much of central Asia and possibly even replacing Islam as the aggressive interloper into India.
Its almost certaing to be divided into numerous groups as OTL in ~636 and probably more as the ideas are too divisive while as I mentioned to ATP local rulers also have interests in avoiding being bound to centres under the control of great powers.
Yep. That makes sense. FWIW, in South Asia, the peripheral areas were initially Buddhist and later became Muslim in real life while the central core remained overwhelmingly Hindu. Here, we might eventually see a transition from Buddhism to Christianity in South Asia's peripheral areas. At least in OTL's Pakistan, but maybe in OTL's Bangladesh as well in due time.
Very interesting and shows how difficult it can be to tell what actually occurred in many points of history. Have heard all four arguments for Islamic conversion in India but never realised how complex the issue was.
Agreed. And it's also quite interesting just how solidly Hindu the Hindu Indian core has remained even after centuries of Islamic influence and rule.
Interestingly enough, there was a brief attempt to merge and fuse Hinduism and Islam together in Mughal times but it failed and was quickly abandoned:
Din-i Ilahi - Wikipedia
BTW, @stevep, this is somewhat off-topic, but you might be interested in the historical ethnic composition of the Mughal nobility:
archive.ph
It's a very interesting article. I'd highly advise you to read it or at least to take a look at it. Apparently the early Mughal nobility was a mix of Iranian and Turkic but the later Mughal nobility was a mix of Iranian and Hindu Indian.
The Ethnic Composition of Mughal Nobility | by ArainGang | Medium
archived 7 Sep 2021 06:31:28 UTC
It's a very interesting article. I'd highly advise you to read it or at least to take a look at it. Apparently the early Mughal nobility was a mix of Iranian and Turkic but the later Mughal nobility was a mix of Iranian and Hindu Indian.
BTW, @stevep, this is somewhat off-topic, but you might be interested in the historical ethnic composition of the Mughal nobility:
The Ethnic Composition of Mughal Nobility | by ArainGang | Medium
archived 7 Sep 2021 06:31:28 UTC
It's a very interesting article. I'd highly advise you to read it or at least to take a look at it. Apparently the early Mughal nobility was a mix of Iranian and Turkic but the later Mughal nobility was a mix of Iranian and Hindu Indian.
Interesting although given the info in the last link I would assume that you would need to factor in the spread of the empire as it ruled different areas at different times. Noticing that the high level of Afghans and then drop could be because they were prominent in the previous ruling class, then many fled to Bengal, which was larger outside Mughal control and later that region was brought into the empire. That could play a major role in the behaviour of the Afghan figures in the early part of the graph. Similarly a lot of the rise in Indian aristocrats could be do to the expansion of the empire into areas where the majority was Hindu and either you had Hindus becoming aristocrats or Muslims being established as rulers and at least in later generations seeing themselves as Indian Muslims. However definitely interesting to see how the identity of the ruling class change over the period of the empire.
I read the short article containing the graph that you linked to. However only a brief look at the longer one it links to.