cherry

eeep just thinking about this brings back memories of a visit to the London Dungeon where they display quite alot about medieval torture.......gruesome stuff

__________________

Kaelith

anything in particular take your fancy?

Kaelith

Anyone got any history questions we could debate? I can't think of anything off the top of my head. I'll try and think of something though if no one says anything.

angels_and_daemons

Ok, asuming a divergent universe model in whicyh time travel is possible thus negating paradox...

What would or could the world be like if key historical events never happened...

IE:
WW1
WW2
Formation of European Common Markets
Ghandi's non-violent protest against imperial occupation of india
Human rights movements
Womens rights movements
Invention of the nuclear bomb by american forces.

and any other interesting events

Rabid Bogling

I can't quite answer them all, but I'll have a go with a few;

Due to the political scenario of the time, and the whole 'balance' of power in Europe, I'd say it was inevitable with or without the Arch-Duke's assassination. If in the unlikely scenario that WWI hadn't broken out at all, I'd imagine that A) The European Empires would either still be in existance, though likely significantly weaker and smaller in size, or be completely replaced by Communist states. B) We'd be sat in that same pre-War situation, just waiting for it to happen. And C) the US wouldn't be nearly as influential, and probably still isolationist.

Fascism would never have developed it's demonic image, and Germany would likely have continued to slip into economic ruin.

Armed rebellion, probably resulting in the 'carving up' of India, and rule by a string of military juntas.

You're kidding, right?

__________________
We can categorically state that we have not released man-eating badgers into the area - British Military Spokesman, Major Mike Shearer

Raul

Agreed with Rabid here, without WW1 the British would have most likely kept the majority of its Empire, same for Germany etc. After all it was due to the economic disaster of the war that lead in part to the break up of the old Empires.

Raul

The Viking 'blood eagle' always interested me Kaelith.

Futt

OK, WWII scenario:
Nazi Germany completes the A-bomb first, kicks Russian butt and wins on the east front. Firmly establishes 3rd reich in Europe/Eurasia. Resistance in the occupied European countries crushed, sympathisers and collaborators replace local government.

Consequences for the world power balance? The US' status as a super power? Would there be a cold war, and would the outcome have been different? Would the UK have yielded to this new superpower? Would Hitler have turned on the UK with full force, or left them alone?

__________________

http://www.futt.org/

Kaelith

please elaborate? o_O

Kaelith

The threads has died a bit so i'll bring in something that i think people might have quite a lot to say about. I only hope we can get people from both sides :/

The American War of Independence!

Did the English really care?

Could the English have realistically won with the forces stationed in America?

What would have happened if the English had won?

Would there have realistically been another war for independence had the English won? Or would the USA now be part of the commonwealth?

Or prehaps, if the English had really fought and won the war and kept control of America might they have used this resource to make war on Europe and defeat the old powers?

Questions? Answers? Discuss!

Raul

Borrowed from Wikepedia,


As for your other questions:
Yes they cared, but being so far away and having a King that was slowly loosing the plot played big factors.
If we had won or if infact the war never started in the first place, i think the US would have ended up alot like Canada and perhaps Australia. Also the loss of the America's wasnt that much of a big deal at the time, i mean we still had nearly 150 years of the Empire ahead of us, some may even say the best times.

Rabid Bogling

Like Raul said, of course the BRITISH cared about American Independance. I think the King's 'madness' is often overstated, though. I agree that the Thirteen Colonies may well have eventually attained complete autonomy, though it isn't set in stone. It's also worth noting that North America would have had an even bloodier history. The French would never have sold their territories to the British as they did to the US. It's also entirely possible that the Spanish would have maintained authority over Mexico, and therein many of it's other American protectorates. Spain would have been a very different place in such circumstances. As realty would have it they fell out of the Imperial Game impoverished and broken. If nothing else, had they maintained power Napoleon would have had a far harder time taking Iberia.

Though the question of the British winning the War of Independance is a hard one to answer. I'd ultimately say that no, they couldn't have. Though they did have -some- support amidst the locals (I forget how much.. 30%? Less?), the foreign interference (notably from the Spanish, French, and Dutch) was the deciding factor. Without it, it might have been possible, but even then it would have been far from a walk-over. There may well have been a second American Revolution, though again that would depend on the nature of British relations with the other Empires. I'd argue that, had the British won, slavery would have clung on in the Empire for far longer.

With or without the Thirteen Colonies, I seriously doubt Britain could have beaten the entirety of Europe. Perhaps in a series of one-to-one wars, but such rarely happens, esspecially not in 18th-19th century Europe. Besides, such actions would be in complete conflict with British notions of 'power-balance' in Europe (e.g. not allowing a single nation to control the continent).

__________________
We can categorically state that we have not released man-eating badgers into the area - British Military Spokesman, Major Mike Shearer

angels_and_daemons

I think a protracted geurilla warfare type fight with america (and the hit and run attacks do fall into that catagory) could potentially have sapped english armed forces enough that other european nations might have turned thier eye to this little island. I think it also would have taken us some time to rethink our stratergy... for the first time in history we were facing an army that didn't line up in front of our well trained ranks...

Raul

Pure hollywood fiction!

(borrowed from another source)

While the American Revolutionary War is often thought of as a guerrilla war, guerrilla tactics were uncommon, and almost all of the battles involved conventional set-piece battles. Some of the confusion may be because Generals George Washington and Nathanael Greene successfully used a strategy of harassment and progressively grinding down British forces instead of seeking a decisive battle, in a classic example of asymmetric warfare. Nevertheless the theater tactics used by most of the American forces were those of conventional warfare. One of the exceptions was in the south, where the brunt of the war was upon militia forces who fought the enemy British troops and their Loyalist supporters, but used concealment, surprise, and other guerrilla tactics to much advantage. General Francis Marion of South Carolina, who often attacked the British at unexpected places and then faded into the swamps by the time the British were able to organized return fire, was named by them The Swamp Fox. However, even in the south, most of the major engagements were set-piece battles of conventional warfare. See also Ethan Allen and the Green Mountain Boys, for another Revolutionary example.

So basically Mel Gibson didnt single handedly free America from the evil British.

angels_and_daemons

According to the military history we did in the army cadets it was the first recorded instance the british had faced such tactics, which is why it was a suprise - it's also a very difficult tactic to defend against because so much forest existed to hide in.

Certainly that alone wasn't why we lost, and the supply of weapons and training was indeed more the french than Mel Gibson. But you can never over look the use of tactics... hell right up till the middle of world war one we were still using the "march slowly towards the enemy" method of warfare (good old Hague... someone should have shot him long before he sent so many to thier deaths against machinegun outposts)... and guerilla warfare is why the americans couldn't get anywhere in vietnam (thier dreadful training, poor equipment aside they had plenty of numbers and still they came out with a no score draw). The american war was the same thing, we were still sending over men trained to walk in nice columns along the road - only to find out there was a french led group of skirmishers in the trees next to the road...