I am a Brazilian economist and I came to leave just one comment, the slave trade in Brazil was an autophagous system, it was not like in the USA where you had a slave trade to keep the slave stock on the farms, but much of the demand was by reproducing the existing population In colonial Brazil and especially in the empire, the traffic was the most dynamic and important sector of the economy, and it did not even exist by demand, but by itself the profits were so great that slaves could be sold for any value, and this resulted to an almost infinite supply of slave labor while in some regions the slave was more likely to buy his freedom, as he could produce enough money for himself to buy another slave in other cases the slave had the worst possible conditions, since death was a small cost to the producer. One of the reasons why we did not industrialize is precisely because in the nineteenth century our capital was almost entirely invested in the slave trade, and when it was over, Brazil did not have an established labor force market like in the US, only having one in the decade. 30 The causes of cities such as Rio de Janeiro have thrived was the Atlantic traffic It is almost impossible to imagine the changes in our economic and productive structure if slavery had not existed here. I love your channel mr white nerd, im glad you are back from your mountain tour
"The real tradgedy of the Altantic Slave Trade was that millions of people were tortued and enslaved so that we could get goods that we didn't need and made us more unhealthy and much of the income was fritted away and the societies it built were stunted and warped for hundreds of years." Thanks for the Depression.
"But without slaves, how would we have tobacco and sugar and stuff?" "We could pay workers, I guess..." "Preposterous! That would seriously damage our profit margins!"
That's actually a colossal lie though. Slavery actually depressed cash-crop production. Just compare cotton and tobacco production between 1850 to 1870. The reason so many White people in the South advocated for slavery was because of the social status and privilege associate with it.
Crazy that the yield of a mediaeval European serf was taxed at 10% where modern income in the West gets taxed at as high as 40%. Not to mention all the other forms of taxes. Really puts things in perspective
To be fair, ten percent was probably the low point, I know that serf production taxes (or whatever taking a portion of your crop is called), could go at least as high as fifty percent.
@@Great_Olaf5 Aside from standards of living being way better for everyone, the system isn't really all that different anyway. Lords/nobles are just High profile politicians and entrepreneurs, free citizens are people who own property or a good local business but don't have the capital or influence to be called lords/nobles, serfs is most of the 9 to 5 regular working population & in-between and modern day slaves are just sweatshop workers. Again, living conditions are better for most people though.
The 10%+ was solely for the army. After each global war and associated tax hike the governments in the developed world decided to keep the taxes at the raised levels and use them to provide public services, which were mostly much more popular than reducing the taxes again
Man if the Pope in 1500 would have said EXCOMUNICATION for all Catholic nations who practice slavery, and if the following Popes kept this law up. I think slavery wouldn't have happened as much. Edit: Baklava!
@Metsarebuff 22 Yes but if let's say the Pope put out in the bull that excommunication would be enforced on those countries, I could see a much more devout country such as Portugal, who was arguably the worse and created the slave trade well before anyone else, would be reluctant to even start the trade and the other powers of Europe would be less likely to think of it themselves. There's also the fact that Spain most likely wouldn't have done it and probably would've attacked anyone who tried to start it. I could see France attacking and enforcing the Papal Bull as well but it depends on the year since France did have it's fair share of Protestant movements in the country for a bit. The only power who could maybe get away with it would be England/Great Britain.
@The Nova renaissance Perhaps some but what major power would switch religion to justify slavery and could afford to even colonize the New World, maintain a large navy and army, own parts of the coast of Africa to buy slaves and then transport them across the Atlantic Ocean and then transport all the goods back to Europe? Definitely not any minor HRE German state, not Sweden, not Denmark, not Russia, not the Ottomans, not any minor Italian state and not any other inland European country. The only options for countries turning protestant would be Western Europe's powerhouse such as England, France, Castile, Portugal and the Netherlands. Castile and Portugal are off the list of possibly turning Protestant, main peasants had no say about if slavery should be done and if the king abandoned the Catholic faith and switched to the Protestant faith just for slavery there would be major consequences. France could maybe turn, if some king had Protestant sympathies at the right time could slowly push for the people to switch and they do slavery but I could see that causing friction with Castile to the south of them. The Netherlands would be easier, I could see them doing it, but it all depends on how France goes. England would definitely be able to accomplish it and I see no reason for them not to do it, but it's a matter of when they'd start. Portugal started the slave trade and had a massive headstart over everyone else, the slave trade might not have lasted as long if England had started it since it would be later.
What if doggerland still existed What if Japan colonised America What if persia stayed zoroastrian What if the great purge never happened What if Spain won the Spanish American war
@@apc9714 North America would resemble more like Latin America. The tribes would've made an entirely different type of nation. Also, the climate and diseases as Jared Diamond illustrates had a major role in which European power settled where.
@@amoses585 I think It would be an interesting scenario. I don't think Spain would have colonised a lot North America anyway. Maybe it would have been divided between Spain, France and the native population till the discovery of gold or oil. (Supposed England never recover completely). But I think it would be interesting to consider the consequences for the Spanish Empire with the British (and maybe their Dutch allies) much weaker. A Stronger Spain could have expanded it's influence in the Pacific and Indian Ocean and so on.
"the founding nations of the Atlantic Slave Trade were Spain and to a lesser extent Portugal"?? Excuse me? Portugal not only started the trade, it was the biggest slave trading nation for centuries, being basically the only European nation with sizeable territory in Africa before the Scramble. More slaves went to Brazil than any other American country.
Europeans besides the ottomans had slavery as early as the 14 or 13 hundreds. Slavs were enslaved by some itallian city states. Im curious why nokne teaches why slaves are called slaves. Oh i remember because slavs are white.
@Olivia P im saying slav (the first slaves) the word turned into slavery in regaurds to europe. Europe (not asia not middle east) had modern slavery around 1300-1400. The romans did not practice modern slavery. They had a very different model. Just as i believe asia most likely did.
@@libertarianwhohatesdemsand5741 Slavs were in fact NOT the first slaves which is painfully obvious frankly. It's either the Jews or Egyptians. Slavs are way too far away from bronze age civilization (And the bronze age civilizations had slaves) to be enslaved first if at all.
@@loldiamond1017 those slavery was not the same? Like literally I was talking about why the word slavery is called slavery in the modern day. The word originates from the Italians enslaving slavs.
This was a great video. I think the quality has jumped greatly. The one thing I would say is the volume is too low. I could barely hear you, and I listened to this in the middle of the night. But it was worth it, because this video was very interesting. :D
Great Pirate accent. So, a Pirate alternate history: •What if the Pirate Republic survived? •What if Libertatia was real? •What if the Mughal Empire defeat the EITC with their Pirate navy? •What if Ching Sihn established her own Pirate Empire?
@@Juan-qu4oj But it would most likely end up as a commonwealth and not the same USA were familiar with since your removing culture aspect out side the equation.
@@wallie8539It would still exist without the Trans-Atlantic Slave Trade. Slavery made the US poorer and nearly ruined the US. Even today, former Confederate states are poorer than former Union states.
Thank you for this video, it really crystalizes why slavery was bad in more dimensions than the moral one. You have really hammered home the fact that slavery brings down the freedom and wealth of every participant in a society exept for a select few.
The word "barbeque' comes from the Taino word "barbacoa." The natives of the Greater Antilles were wiped out culturally but their mixed race descendants are still the majority of the population in Puerto Rico.
Well, I must say you´re quite lovely to have on the background when making some maps. Good on that, you´re the first youtuber with real footage I didn´t quit XD
I love this channel. It’s right down my alley content wise and the depth that you go to while maintaining the high level of attention to detail is impressive. You are leading the way for a genre of channels that is just beginning.
No Pele No Michael Jackson No Tina Turner No Al Sharpton No Michael Jordan No Bill Cosby No LeBron James No Frederick Douglass No Mike Tyson No Usain Bolt No OJ Simpson No Clarence Thomas No Oprah No Kareem Abdul Jabbar No Dave Chappelle No Malcolm X No Martin Luther King No Marcus Garvey No Tupac No Denzel Washington No Toussaint L'Overture
You're forgetting a quite large contributor to why the slave trade started. As you mentioned, it was Spain and Portugal that started with the trans Atlantic slave trade. This was actually not for the reason you mentioned, that it was an easy way for lords to keep their luxurious life. In fact, although slavery had been phased out in most of Europe, this wasn't really the case for te Iberian peninsula. Due to the reconquista and its close proximity the Spanish and Portuguese had been in contact with the Islamic world for a while, and once the Iberian peninsula was reconquered the Spanish and Portuguese kept their reconquista mindset and started capturing coastal areas in Africa. This in turn led to the first colonies and outposts in West-Africa. In the Islamic world and in Sub-Saharan West Africa slavery was very much still a thing, and the Spanish and Portuguese were very much aware of it and participated in it for at least a hundred years before Columbus discovered the Americas. Slavery was not a new concept to the catholic Spanish and Portuguese, and they found the perfect way to utilize it in the Americas. When the Protestant countries found out they were very much against it at first. Slavery clashed far more with the very strict protestant ideas of the time than with the ideas catholic church. When the Dutch captured Brazil from Portugal however, they quickly found they couldn't maintain the massive plantations without slaves. Convenient enough for them, there were already slaves there and the Europeans didn't want to do the hard work themselves. So the Dutch West Indies company started participating in the slave trade as well, and even though there was backlash at first they at least managed to get the republic's government to agree. At this point England and France were kind of forced to also participate if they wanted to keep up, or that must have at least been how they saw it. Edit: grammar and spelling.
Does this break his point of departure though? They may have previously been involved to some degree, but if a Pope made it his life's work in the early 1500s to kill slavery, do you think the Spanish and Portuguese would have just ignored it and kept it up? People weren't idiots back then, if they tried to keep it up, even if they changed the name, the Pope would have eventually gotten word and tried to smack them down again. And at this point, Popes were largely out of the habit of overturning their predecessors work on a whim, unless the Spanish pulled an Avignon or something similar, the Papacy would probably keep up the indictment. Very interesting comment though, I like learning about this period.
Finally the face behind the voice :D Keep on althisting!!! We want more videos!!! Edit: If you look on DNA the slave trade was a success story for certain ethnics of Africa. Their DNA was spread all over the new World. For the people themself this is propably not very comforting ...
Dude I’m absolutely loving your confidence levels this video, I don’t know why it took so long to come into my feed! I’ve been a fan of the channel for a while now, you’re who really got me into alternate history because of your controversial topics and impartial perspective. The face cam was great and really added emphasis to the imagery and examples you used.Your sidebar comments were both hilarious and insightful; the pirate accent one absolutely killed me and when you brought up the American Revolution could’ve been equivalent to invading Afghanistan I had used that same example before as well. Though I might point out when you mention European interest in trading with sub Saharan Africa, couldn’t Ivory and gold have been sufficient? Hope this finds you well, keep up the great content!
Actually a massive part of the Texan-Mexican war was that Mexico was anti-slavery and the american migrants wanted to keep their slaves, so that may not happen and without that spark, and combined with a less populated America, the whole American-Mexican war may not happen ever. And going further back, canonically the guy that first brought smallpox to Mexico was an african slave during Cortez's expedition, so the conquest of the aztec empire may not happen or may happen further down the line and in different conditions. The consequences would be impossible to predict.
The Anglos were always going to revolt. They never embraced being Mexican or Catholic. When Santa Anna threw out the constitution in 1835,Tejas one one of many states to revolt. Sure. Slavery was an issue. But, there would’ve been a Revolution regardless.
There probably would have still been a revolt. The Anglo Protestant settlers were culturally very distinct from the Latin Catholic government in Mexico and were a clear majority in most of the Northern parts. Sooner or later something had to give, and the US would support them as they would have allowed the states to gain Pacific ports
The more Catholic and Jewish areas in The United States in this timeline would definitely be more conservative than in our timeline and be similar to Quebec, Canada.
Glad to see that you’re back. I have to say that your POV on this issue makes a metric ton of sense . And fyi: the only thing that differs between you and the mental image I’ve had in the years I’ve watched your videos was the haircut and glasses. I thought you would have dirty blond hair and aviator style glasses. Hahah JSX.
@@Discosaturn I would certainly hope that jazz, rock, rap etc...would be non-existent. There would be a traditional European folk music morphing into bluegrass/traditional country and western music, such as exists in Appalachia.
Fascinating video. But I don't think Brazil could be equal in power to the US, due to its extremely challenging geography which stifles industrialisation and social cohesion. The US by comparison has near perfect geography, which is a huge part of why it is where it is today
I don't think so, usa has the Appalachian states, a big area of mountains like in the coast of brazil, the only thing that could make brazil failed was slavery and it happened, so in this timeline, brazil would be more populated by its industrial revolution start in the same time as uk and usa, so brazil could've a population 'round 250m, meanwhile usa would be lighter populated by its afro-American population doesn't exist, so usa would've somethin' 'round 280m, usa and brazil would be two Democratics capitalists and superpower nations, a cold war could easily happen with usa making dictatorships in central america and Caribbean, and brazil just making this one but in south America and maybe the coast of africa to Atlantic, probably world would be that 'till the rise of china in the 2000s, so usa and brazil would allied and try to keep china under their control and maybe a world war could start, who knows
@@leonardosantilmutti4810I highly doubt that Brazil would be a democracy, the main component (apparent if we exclude certain secret and discreet societies) were the large farmers, former slave owners industrialists like the Baron of Mauá, the traditional nobility, the people, the Imperial navy and most European nations were all supporters of the Brazilian monarchy.
@@seinaumaluco na nossa própria linha do tempo o brasil império foi uma democracia razoalvemente estável, com 13% da população podendo votar em 1881 (número gigantesco pra época, só atrás dos 15% dos EUA) ent imagina sem a escravidão q é uma das piores coisas que tu pode fazer pra um país, eu acho q seríamos quase uma suíça em nível de riqueza e liberdade, com o tanto de recursos naturais que temos que nessa linha do tempo seriam bem usados pra consumo interno, seria impossível haver fome ou coisas do gênero, e a nossa indústria se desenvolveria mt mais, enfim, acho q o brasil seria bem mais democrático sem a escravidão
TBH I'm dissappointed in Brazil too Speaking of slavery Their monarch was actually deposed because he abolished slavery. I'm not kidding. #PedroIIDidNothingWrong
Glad to see you are back. Can you do what if the Raid on Harper's Ferry succeeded? What if Hawaii never became a state? What if Prince John never took the throne in Richard's stead during the Crusades?
Could you do what if the UK kept Hanover. This could happen by making Queen Victoria a man or having the uk use male only succession laws. This would result in the Uk being very involved in German politics, perhaps fighting against Prussia in the Austrian-Prussian war, meaning a good relationship with Austria (helped by the fact that Austria had little to no colonial ambitions). Germany’s lack of access to the North Sea would mean the naval arms race would never have happened. Also Germany might end up being more embroiled in Baltic politics rather than world ones. I can’t be asked to right more. Please make this!!!
5:21 the map is incomplete. Canada had First Nations (Native) slaves. As well as a few African ones. Slavery in Canada was too difficult though, because they didn't have the good climate and soil for the cash crops that grow in warmer areas.
Slavery wasn’t really thing about I think it’s a stretch to compare slavery in Canada to what happened in the United States and the rest of the America’s.
Actually no, it would be as equal as the US, because Brazil was an extraction colony in reality, but on this timeline it would most probably an Habitation colony in which the resources taken from the land would be reinvested bringing a lot of resources to the economy and with that Brazil would become an super power with time.
@Bruno Pereira I agree but the USA has like perfect geography. A giant river goes from one side to the other making trade extremely easy and cheap, it's mainly flat everywhere but the coasts making trade cheaper once more. And there is a shit ton of oil/valuable resources here.
@Bruno Pereira Culture has nothing to do with i,t if you want the example is just look Baron of Maua in 1850s gave a huge pull to industrialization only did not occur because of the system coming into slavery
Nice to see you back. One thing though. Could you please boost up the sound levels on your videos. I always end up having the PC speakers almost on max volume, and the sound on a mobile phone is just tragic.
To be honest I always thought you were a bodybuilder from the Balkans. I just assumed that based on the sound of your voice and your interest in history
I came across this, and realize I've not subscribed to your channel on this account. Welcoke back, man! You have always produced my favorite althistory content on CZcams, so my feed will be approximately 94.89% more interesting. I took the time to do the math, it checks out.
I love this timeline. Slavery means you like being a backwards, backwater, 'My way or the Highway', 'Obey or Die' Totalitarian, Autocratic, Dictatorship.
You should write an althist book. Your scenarios have more thought and realism than nearly any others I've ever seen. Any of these taken from the right angle and during the right time period could prove to be fantastic. Even a short story could be great. You have so much althist potential.
I remember this community being generally civil relative to other comment sections, and yet there seems to be quite a bit of racism here. I do hope that this is a one time thing, that these people are just temporarily here, because I want to keep my faith in this community.
@@marc9324 Fair enough. I was genuinely curious. I did eventually find some crap about "hur hur there'd be less crime in the US", so I see what you mean. Sad.
Without exposure to African people, the Western world's concept of race would be different. In our timeline, "scientific racism" became a mainstream idea only in the middle 19th century, much inspired by the perceived inability of slaves of African origin. Western scholars would stick to the idea of black people as "noble savages". Racism would still exist, but probably not became as universally accepted as it was around 1900. Western popular music would sound very different. Instead of improvized rhythm patterns typical to African-American music, we would hear static metres typical to European folk songs and marches, as well as Indigenous American soundbites.
The music part isn't completely accurate. Of course it would sound different, but Irish and Scottish rhythms and unique structural elements influenced the formation of Black American music genres. I don't think it can be said that American music would solely be similar to classical European music because the country would still be a melting pot
@@chrisfine6013That’s not really true. If you listen to traditional Scottish and English music and American music it doesn’t sound the same whatsoever. Our musicianship stems from Africa, the Brits didn’t sing or play instruments like Black Americans. The only European aspect of American music are instruments. Although the electric guitar, bass and banjo aren’t European.
Do the crusades next! "What if the crusades had not happened..." or "If the crusades succeeded..." It would be interesting to think of a modern world where the Crusader States still existed. Overall fantastic content! ;)
Jack Margiotta I agree. If the crusades were successful it could go in a couple of different directions. One would possibly be bringing about Christianity in the Middle East and closer ties to the people there resulting in peace or it could go the other way and lead to persecution and constant battles.
@Iorclins Eveirnis yeah i saw the video a few months back on useful charts, a very great video by the way, I've seen other channels do what if videos but I still would like to see this channel do a what if America became monarchy, I think it would be cool and interesting to see what he could come up with like did with his what if Rome discovered the America's video.
The soil in new Zealand is excellent for growing crops ....we are a massive exporter and have a year round growing season I say this as a master horticulturist.
You should make maps for your timelines. I would love to see what the world outside of South America would look like. Also make your videos louder, I had headphones on and I had to put my phone to full blast.
What if Oman became a super power? (Could you consider this one because I haven’t seen any alt history Oman even though it had been a colonizer but it just didn’t advance technologically but what if it did)
It did defeat the Portuguese but because they were Ibadi (neither Sunni or Shia) they were still anathema to the powerful Sunni Ottomans and Mughals nearby and were in direct conflict with the Shi'ite Safavids in Iran. Before they knew it, British East India company was in the picture, and it was all over for them... Culminating in the humiliating 30 min "battle of Zanzibar" (shortest war in recorded history).
The Nova renaissance In 1800, Austria had a population of 23 Million. Mainland France had 26 Million. Mind you, the Austrians lacked the Austrian Netherlands, Milan, and Naples at the time (Napoleonic Wars).
@The Nova renaissance So? They were 'core' territory that Austria mobilized for the military, unlike the Omanese Empire, which was trading-based, like British India. Austria also controlled the HRE (influence over Germany).
The Nova renaissance Because that’s like making Carthage Rome. The Omani empire was a trading empire largely based around slaves. If you changed it so that Oman could be part of a superpower, it wouldn’t be Oman anymore. It would be an Arabian Caliphate.
There was Bengal which supplied a lot of fabrics for the British industrial cities. The bigger question is the rubber since Belgium won't build their wealth of the Kongo nor would the Dutch East Indies.
kankuj23 The Congo could produce Rubber without cutting off hands. Turns out though, it just wasn’t enough for the King’s liking. A fuck ton of Rubber was also made in Brazil and Malaysia, though the former needed Slave Labor.
@@kankuj23 No, the British would also have a lot of rubber with Malaysia and Sri Lanka Plus not having slavery would not mean no scramble for Africa since the scramble happened first for prestige reasons and the countries that partook in it had already outlawed slavery
They did in part. Almost all areas were there were a substantial population of White settlers were eventually became Dominions, with self-rule, but with the British Monarch as Head of State and the Privy Council as their Highest Legal Court. Ireland was the obvious exception. It's very proximity to England, seemed to give the British Establishment a blind spot, where the predominantly Catholic Irish were viewed with suspicion at best, and downright hostility, but the English were and still do seem content to use Ireland as a labour source. The areas of the empire that had a non-White population as the majority remained colonies, even though India was the biggest market for English goods with the largest population of all the British Empire colonies. In fact, the refusal to give India Dominion status empowered the steadily growing movement for independence. And Whatifalhist is right: although the wealth from its empire gave Britain a head start in industrialisation, they began to lose that advantage in the late 19th century because they had been so focused on extracting profits from their colonies, they had given little thought to investing in the economic development of those colonies. The Dominions, having self rule, did industrialise but, the Colonies never really developed beyond concentrating their economic output on goods Britain wanted. That would be a decision they would regret in the long run. Britain basically maintained a closed market. They did not want to import goods outside the Empire unless there was no alternative, and similarly, they wanted to maintain the flow of capital and goods from the colonies. So they never invested in anything but those goods. It is telling that India did not have its own industrial revolution until after the British left after World War II. Why? Britain did not want any competition for British industries. For example, in India the British grew cotton there but, transported it back to Lancashire's Cotton Mills to turn it into cloth, and then shipped the finished cloth and sold it to the Indians. Indian production of woven cotton was banned. So, India was in a one-sided relationship with Britain who took more than she gave. This tendency, encouraged poor economic management of India, and because they failed to build its economy, the returns from India declined. The British East India Company was the means by which India was conquered and bought into the Empire. But over time poor management bought about its bankruptcy, and the British State took over but, they were little better at running India. Even when leaving, the British tried to take as much as they could back to Britain. Arguably, until recently this hampered extensive economic development in India, and it still has a long way to go.
bbonner422 I meant if the constituent parts of its empire were integrated into full kingdoms of the UK, like Scotland. Or like what Cecil Rhodes wanted to see. Dominion status was more like leaving a puppet state with self-rule.
3:30 your forgetting that chattel slavery is a newer thing. the romans had a very different type of slavery than what the antebellum south had. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_ancient_Rome
-What if the Titanic never sank? -What if Julius Caesar wasn’t assassinated? -What if Prohibition didn’t happen? -What if Prohibition was still around? -What if NASA’s Apollo Program never ended? -What if cars were never invented? -What if Thomas Dewey defeated Harry Truman?
Brazil: exists
Whatifalthist: My disappointment is immeasurable and my day is ruined
As a brazilian I can confirm that we think that about our country every single day
That is valid for every country south of the Rio Grande tbh
@@slayer1156 Uruguay, Chile, Costa Rica, and Panama are exceptions.
@@AfroAsiaticLanguages yes, big economic tigers. Sure.
@@slayer1156 They are stable and successful, with a better standard of living. Uruguay is the most peaceful.
wait, you're not a ship? I always thought you;re a talking ship...
LMAO.
he looks better than I imagined him lol.
We have been tricked and quite possibly bamboozled
Same
You forgot to say "my disappointment is immense and my day is ruined"
I am a Brazilian economist and I came to leave just one comment, the slave trade in Brazil was an autophagous system, it was not like in the USA where you had a slave trade to keep the slave stock on the farms, but much of the demand was by reproducing the existing population
In colonial Brazil and especially in the empire, the traffic was the most dynamic and important sector of the economy, and it did not even exist by demand, but by itself the profits were so great that slaves could be sold for any value, and this resulted to an almost infinite supply of slave labor
while in some regions the slave was more likely to buy his freedom, as he could produce enough money for himself to buy another slave
in other cases the slave had the worst possible conditions, since death was a small cost to the producer.
One of the reasons why we did not industrialize is precisely because in the nineteenth century our capital was almost entirely invested in the slave trade, and when it was over, Brazil did not have an established labor force market like in the US, only having one in the decade. 30
The causes of cities such as Rio de Janeiro have thrived was the Atlantic traffic
It is almost impossible to imagine the changes in our economic and productive structure if slavery had not existed here.
I love your channel mr white nerd, im glad you are back from your mountain tour
make sance
>Astolfo pfp
But yeah IMO he underestimates how much slavery happened down here.
@Bander1 You mean that the South fell because of the Sunk Cost Fallacy? And they are still doubling down on that delusion.
Astolfo Ripley
“I’m a Brazilian economist” no you’re clearly an anime girl?!
@@camatzuma actually it's a guy.
"The real tradgedy of the Altantic Slave Trade was that millions of people were tortued and enslaved so that we could get goods that we didn't need and made us more unhealthy and much of the income was fritted away and the societies it built were stunted and warped for hundreds of years." Thanks for the Depression.
History is just concentrated depression, you just see all the old mistakes of the past repeated :/
E
Not tragedy, but catastrophe, or irony.
@@EpicMRPancake All of the above.
😁😁😁
"But without slaves, how would we have tobacco and sugar and stuff?"
"We could pay workers, I guess..."
"Preposterous! That would seriously damage our profit margins!"
I guess humanity can never get over this problem hu?
Funnily enough, it would be more profitable to use hired workers, if it weren't for the depopulation of the Americas during the Columbian exchange.
That's actually a colossal lie though. Slavery actually depressed cash-crop production. Just compare cotton and tobacco production between 1850 to 1870. The reason so many White people in the South advocated for slavery was because of the social status and privilege associate with it.
Keith Kevelson and the climate made da huwite sick or something
Ironically slavery damage thier profits even more.
Crazy that the yield of a mediaeval European serf was taxed at 10% where modern income in the West gets taxed at as high as 40%. Not to mention all the other forms of taxes. Really puts things in perspective
To be fair, ten percent was probably the low point, I know that serf production taxes (or whatever taking a portion of your crop is called), could go at least as high as fifty percent.
@@Great_Olaf5 Aside from standards of living being way better for everyone, the system isn't really all that different anyway.
Lords/nobles are just High profile politicians and entrepreneurs, free citizens are people who own property or a good local business but don't have the capital or influence to be called lords/nobles, serfs is most of the 9 to 5 regular working population & in-between and modern day slaves are just sweatshop workers.
Again, living conditions are better for most people though.
Medieval Europe also didn’t have paved roads, street lights, public transportation, schools for every child, plumbing, universal healthcare etc
The 10%+ was solely for the army. After each global war and associated tax hike the governments in the developed world decided to keep the taxes at the raised levels and use them to provide public services, which were mostly much more popular than reducing the taxes again
@@karhammer Besides that people aren't tied to land anymore. I think that's a huge of big deal to be ignored.
Man if the Pope in 1500 would have said EXCOMUNICATION for all Catholic nations who practice slavery, and if the following Popes kept this law up. I think slavery wouldn't have happened as much.
Edit: Baklava!
Wasn't there a papal bull against slavery in the 1500s.
@@meandmetoo8436 wouldn't doubt it. Did it include excomunication? If it did Spain would Invade any euro country that did not up hold the bull.
@Pecu Alex I'm certain it was not.
@Metsarebuff 22 Yes but if let's say the Pope put out in the bull that excommunication would be enforced on those countries, I could see a much more devout country such as Portugal, who was arguably the worse and created the slave trade well before anyone else, would be reluctant to even start the trade and the other powers of Europe would be less likely to think of it themselves. There's also the fact that Spain most likely wouldn't have done it and probably would've attacked anyone who tried to start it. I could see France attacking and enforcing the Papal Bull as well but it depends on the year since France did have it's fair share of Protestant movements in the country for a bit. The only power who could maybe get away with it would be England/Great Britain.
@The Nova renaissance Perhaps some but what major power would switch religion to justify slavery and could afford to even colonize the New World, maintain a large navy and army, own parts of the coast of Africa to buy slaves and then transport them across the Atlantic Ocean and then transport all the goods back to Europe? Definitely not any minor HRE German state, not Sweden, not Denmark, not Russia, not the Ottomans, not any minor Italian state and not any other inland European country. The only options for countries turning protestant would be Western Europe's powerhouse such as England, France, Castile, Portugal and the Netherlands. Castile and Portugal are off the list of possibly turning Protestant, main peasants had no say about if slavery should be done and if the king abandoned the Catholic faith and switched to the Protestant faith just for slavery there would be major consequences. France could maybe turn, if some king had Protestant sympathies at the right time could slowly push for the people to switch and they do slavery but I could see that causing friction with Castile to the south of them. The Netherlands would be easier, I could see them doing it, but it all depends on how France goes. England would definitely be able to accomplish it and I see no reason for them not to do it, but it's a matter of when they'd start. Portugal started the slave trade and had a massive headstart over everyone else, the slave trade might not have lasted as long if England had started it since it would be later.
What if doggerland still existed
What if Japan colonised America
What if persia stayed zoroastrian
What if the great purge never happened
What if Spain won the Spanish American war
He basically did what if Persia was zoroastrian. In his version of what if islam never existed
I think Spain cloud have never won the Spanish-American world. I think it would be more interesting What if Spain defeated England in 1588.
APC 219
Buuuuuuuuuuuuut, what if it did?
@@apc9714 North America would resemble more like Latin America. The tribes would've made an entirely different type of nation. Also, the climate and diseases as Jared Diamond illustrates had a major role in which European power settled where.
@@amoses585 I think It would be an interesting scenario. I don't think Spain would have colonised a lot North America anyway. Maybe it would have been divided between Spain, France and the native population till the discovery of gold or oil. (Supposed England never recover completely). But I think it would be interesting to consider the consequences for the Spanish Empire with the British (and maybe their Dutch allies) much weaker. A Stronger Spain could have expanded it's influence in the Pacific and Indian Ocean and so on.
"the founding nations of the Atlantic Slave Trade were Spain and to a lesser extent Portugal"?? Excuse me? Portugal not only started the trade, it was the biggest slave trading nation for centuries, being basically the only European nation with sizeable territory in Africa before the Scramble. More slaves went to Brazil than any other American country.
Europeans besides the ottomans had slavery as early as the 14 or 13 hundreds. Slavs were enslaved by some itallian city states. Im curious why nokne teaches why slaves are called slaves. Oh i remember because slavs are white.
@Olivia P im saying slav (the first slaves) the word turned into slavery in regaurds to europe. Europe (not asia not middle east) had modern slavery around 1300-1400. The romans did not practice modern slavery. They had a very different model. Just as i believe asia most likely did.
Air Conditioner aren’t Slavs white? Like, cmon, you guys are white
@@libertarianwhohatesdemsand5741 Slavs were in fact NOT the first slaves which is painfully obvious frankly. It's either the Jews or Egyptians. Slavs are way too far away from bronze age civilization (And the bronze age civilizations had slaves) to be enslaved first if at all.
@@loldiamond1017 those slavery was not the same? Like literally I was talking about why the word slavery is called slavery in the modern day. The word originates from the Italians enslaving slavs.
This was a great video. I think the quality has jumped greatly. The one thing I would say is the volume is too low. I could barely hear you, and I listened to this in the middle of the night. But it was worth it, because this video was very interesting. :D
Yes, I was wondering if the volume was a 'me' problem, or a 'him' problem.
Mans look like a vox reporter.
PJW looks like that? I knew I couldn’t trust his British ass
Agreed
Good, the unionized workers at vox produce good shit.
except he doesnt look soylent
RXI 6375 you're a repressed gay dude lol
Great Pirate accent. So, a Pirate alternate history:
•What if the Pirate Republic survived?
•What if Libertatia was real?
•What if the Mughal Empire defeat the EITC with their Pirate navy?
•What if Ching Sihn established her own Pirate Empire?
It's my birthday today and whatifalthist is back, that's damn near the perfect day!
happy birthday
Lower crime, obesity, mental illnesses, taxes, etc lol
And most importantly no USA lol
@@wallie8539 Sounds good for everyone
@@wallie8539 USA would still exist
@@Juan-qu4oj But it would most likely end up as a commonwealth and not the same USA were familiar with since your removing culture aspect out side the equation.
@@wallie8539It would still exist without the Trans-Atlantic Slave Trade. Slavery made the US poorer and nearly ruined the US. Even today, former Confederate states are poorer than former Union states.
In the beginning, I thought he was gonna pull that 90's intro
"Oh, Hi! I didn't see you there." 😂
Thank you for this video, it really crystalizes why slavery was bad in more dimensions than the moral one.
You have really hammered home the fact that slavery brings down the freedom and wealth of every participant in a society exept for a select few.
That's what people often miss
“Our cuisine was made in bad taste, and overly vulgar..”
Me, eating McDonalds *Hm, yeah.. I can see that..*
The word "barbeque' comes from the Taino word "barbacoa." The natives of the Greater Antilles were wiped out culturally but their mixed race descendants are still the majority of the population in Puerto Rico.
I'm glad you're alive and you're handsome 👍
Well, I must say you´re quite lovely to have on the background when making some maps.
Good on that, you´re the first youtuber with real footage I didn´t quit XD
I love this channel. It’s right down my alley content wise and the depth that you go to while maintaining the high level of attention to detail is impressive. You are leading the way for a genre of channels that is just beginning.
If only the Pope had the courage and the strenght to do so!
Given the weight of Spanish influence in Catholic Europe I think it would be unlikely. Doesn't mean that he should have.
Given the moral quality of Popes like Rodrigo Borgia and Leo de Medici, I doubt they would that bothered by it.
No Pele
No Michael Jackson
No Tina Turner
No Al Sharpton
No Michael Jordan
No Bill Cosby
No LeBron James
No Frederick Douglass
No Mike Tyson
No Usain Bolt
No OJ Simpson
No Clarence Thomas
No Oprah
No Kareem Abdul Jabbar
No Dave Chappelle
No Malcolm X
No Martin Luther King
No Marcus Garvey
No Tupac
No Denzel Washington
No Toussaint L'Overture
No rock music. No rap music. no jazz. No blues. Not a world I want to live in.
No pulp fiction
@@liberalbias4462 what we call classical music surely would have evolved into a standard rock band, right?
@@colebedggood9261
No cool runnings
No count blackula
No the Wire
No Superfly
@@BoqPrecision no men in black, no green mile, no shawshank redemption, no lost. No x-files, no x-men, no predator, no star wars lol, no scary movie
You're forgetting a quite large contributor to why the slave trade started.
As you mentioned, it was Spain and Portugal that started with the trans Atlantic slave trade. This was actually not for the reason you mentioned, that it was an easy way for lords to keep their luxurious life. In fact, although slavery had been phased out in most of Europe, this wasn't really the case for te Iberian peninsula.
Due to the reconquista and its close proximity the Spanish and Portuguese had been in contact with the Islamic world for a while, and once the Iberian peninsula was reconquered the Spanish and Portuguese kept their reconquista mindset and started capturing coastal areas in Africa. This in turn led to the first colonies and outposts in West-Africa.
In the Islamic world and in Sub-Saharan West Africa slavery was very much still a thing, and the Spanish and Portuguese were very much aware of it and participated in it for at least a hundred years before Columbus discovered the Americas. Slavery was not a new concept to the catholic Spanish and Portuguese, and they found the perfect way to utilize it in the Americas.
When the Protestant countries found out they were very much against it at first. Slavery clashed far more with the very strict protestant ideas of the time than with the ideas catholic church.
When the Dutch captured Brazil from Portugal however, they quickly found they couldn't maintain the massive plantations without slaves. Convenient enough for them, there were already slaves there and the Europeans didn't want to do the hard work themselves. So the Dutch West Indies company started participating in the slave trade as well, and even though there was backlash at first they at least managed to get the republic's government to agree.
At this point England and France were kind of forced to also participate if they wanted to keep up, or that must have at least been how they saw it.
Edit: grammar and spelling.
Does this break his point of departure though? They may have previously been involved to some degree, but if a Pope made it his life's work in the early 1500s to kill slavery, do you think the Spanish and Portuguese would have just ignored it and kept it up? People weren't idiots back then, if they tried to keep it up, even if they changed the name, the Pope would have eventually gotten word and tried to smack them down again. And at this point, Popes were largely out of the habit of overturning their predecessors work on a whim, unless the Spanish pulled an Avignon or something similar, the Papacy would probably keep up the indictment.
Very interesting comment though, I like learning about this period.
wow great to hear; love the theory behind it
What if the Teutonic Order won at the battle of Grunwald?
They would be beaten to a pulp eventually.
that would start a cycle of wars between both nations and poland will most likely annex teutons after few decades of fights
I like to think that the cuts between lines are because the neighbor keeps butting in like, "Hey what'cha doin' over there? Makin' a video?"
Finally the face behind the voice :D
Keep on althisting!!! We want more videos!!!
Edit: If you look on DNA the slave trade was a success story for certain ethnics of Africa. Their DNA was spread all over the new World. For the people themself this is propably not very comforting ...
Idk if I've seen a more ignorant comment.
....what if it didn't happen? ...we would have less hellholes in our once beautiful cities... ....period..
Thank you for tackling heavy topics it’s the CZcams I live for 😌
Dude I’m absolutely loving your confidence levels this video, I don’t know why it took so long to come into my feed! I’ve been a fan of the channel for a while now, you’re who really got me into alternate history because of your controversial topics and impartial perspective. The face cam was great and really added emphasis to the imagery and examples you used.Your sidebar comments were both hilarious and insightful; the pirate accent one absolutely killed me and when you brought up the American Revolution could’ve been equivalent to invading Afghanistan I had used that same example before as well. Though I might point out when you mention European interest in trading with sub Saharan Africa, couldn’t Ivory and gold have been sufficient? Hope this finds you well, keep up the great content!
Actually a massive part of the Texan-Mexican war was that Mexico was anti-slavery and the american migrants wanted to keep their slaves, so that may not happen and without that spark, and combined with a less populated America, the whole American-Mexican war may not happen ever.
And going further back, canonically the guy that first brought smallpox to Mexico was an african slave during Cortez's expedition, so the conquest of the aztec empire may not happen or may happen further down the line and in different conditions. The consequences would be impossible to predict.
The Anglos were always going to revolt. They never embraced being Mexican or Catholic. When Santa Anna threw out the constitution in 1835,Tejas one one of many states to revolt. Sure. Slavery was an issue. But, there would’ve been a Revolution regardless.
There probably would have still been a revolt. The Anglo Protestant settlers were culturally very distinct from the Latin Catholic government in Mexico and were a clear majority in most of the Northern parts. Sooner or later something had to give, and the US would support them as they would have allowed the states to gain Pacific ports
One person didn't bring a disease. That's like saying the US was ravaged by covid because John from new jersey caught it
You're my 2nd favorite alternative history channel (after Alternate History Hub).
He's much better than alternate history hub
Monsieur Z?
@@TheWazzoGames yeah he's easily the worst
@@marka.1770 Not even because of that his videos are just terrible
@@TheWazzoGames i use to like him but he whent down the shitter
Studying the blade i see *tips fedora and walks out the door in anime style*
Music would suck, and there wouldn't be much crime.
Hahahahaha😂
The more Catholic and Jewish areas in The United States in this timeline would definitely be more conservative than in our timeline and be similar to Quebec, Canada.
Hallelujah, brother!
This video was simply amazing! Also, I'm so happy for the face reveal and I'd really like a video on piracy.
The prodigy has returned!
Glad to see that you’re back. I have to say that your POV on this issue makes a metric ton of sense .
And fyi: the only thing that differs between you and the mental image I’ve had in the years I’ve watched your videos was the haircut and glasses. I thought you would have dirty blond hair and aviator style glasses.
Hahah JSX.
I imagine the American continent would be even more predominantly white and hispanic
I'm glad you improved and I'm glad to have you back!
This timeline is awesome make more videos like this, welcome back
*It is here, after so many months, it is here*
One thing's for certain but because of no Atlantic slave trade...
Music would sound very different today!
It would be much improved, I think.
@@petebondurant58
I'd say music would remain classical but rap would be nonexistent.
@@Discosaturn I would certainly hope that jazz, rock, rap etc...would be non-existent. There would be a traditional European folk music morphing into bluegrass/traditional country and western music, such as exists in Appalachia.
This is the weirdest history channel ever😂
.
.
.
"Hi! I'm back!"😂😂
Goodness this video is so information dense. Wasn't expecting this massive load of info. Awesome video.
This type of format is really good man! Keep it coming.
I really love your vids dude, please keep making them!!
Good to have you back! Love your videos!
Fascinating video. But I don't think Brazil could be equal in power to the US, due to its extremely challenging geography which stifles industrialisation and social cohesion. The US by comparison has near perfect geography, which is a huge part of why it is where it is today
I don't think so, usa has the Appalachian states, a big area of mountains like in the coast of brazil, the only thing that could make brazil failed was slavery and it happened, so in this timeline, brazil would be more populated by its industrial revolution start in the same time as uk and usa, so brazil could've a population 'round 250m, meanwhile usa would be lighter populated by its afro-American population doesn't exist, so usa would've somethin' 'round 280m, usa and brazil would be two Democratics capitalists and superpower nations, a cold war could easily happen with usa making dictatorships in central america and Caribbean, and brazil just making this one but in south America and maybe the coast of africa to Atlantic, probably world would be that 'till the rise of china in the 2000s, so usa and brazil would allied and try to keep china under their control and maybe a world war could start, who knows
@@leonardosantilmutti4810I highly doubt that Brazil would be a democracy, the main component (apparent if we exclude certain secret and discreet societies) were the large farmers, former slave owners industrialists like the Baron of Mauá, the traditional nobility, the people, the Imperial navy and most European nations were all supporters of the Brazilian monarchy.
@@leonardosantilmutti4810se o Pedrão não fosse um cagão é possível que tivéssemos a monarquia até hoje.
@@seinaumaluco na nossa própria linha do tempo o brasil império foi uma democracia razoalvemente estável, com 13% da população podendo votar em 1881 (número gigantesco pra época, só atrás dos 15% dos EUA) ent imagina sem a escravidão q é uma das piores coisas que tu pode fazer pra um país, eu acho q seríamos quase uma suíça em nível de riqueza e liberdade, com o tanto de recursos naturais que temos que nessa linha do tempo seriam bem usados pra consumo interno, seria impossível haver fome ou coisas do gênero, e a nossa indústria se desenvolveria mt mais, enfim, acho q o brasil seria bem mais democrático sem a escravidão
TBH I'm dissappointed in Brazil too
Speaking of slavery
Their monarch was actually deposed because he abolished slavery.
I'm not kidding.
#PedroIIDidNothingWrong
Was his daughter the abolished slavery.
@@leuris_khan2 she just signed it. Pedro II was abolishing slavery gradually with some laws.
Finally a decent analysis by someone on YT on this! I prefer the hypothetical version of history TBH.
Glad to see you are back. Can you do what if the Raid on Harper's Ferry succeeded?
What if Hawaii never became a state?
What if Prince John never took the throne in Richard's stead during the Crusades?
Cool, I like this style of video. Glad you are back.
I missed these videos man I’m glad your back!
Could you do what if the UK kept Hanover. This could happen by making Queen Victoria a man or having the uk use male only succession laws. This would result in the Uk being very involved in German politics, perhaps fighting against Prussia in the Austrian-Prussian war, meaning a good relationship with Austria (helped by the fact that Austria had little to no colonial ambitions). Germany’s lack of access to the North Sea would mean the naval arms race would never have happened. Also Germany might end up being more embroiled in Baltic politics rather than world ones. I can’t be asked to right more. Please make this!!!
5:21 the map is incomplete. Canada had First Nations (Native) slaves. As well as a few African ones. Slavery in Canada was too difficult though, because they didn't have the good climate and soil for the cash crops that grow in warmer areas.
Slavery in Canada was outlawed in the late 1700's, it was also the First Nations that were practicing slavery the most during this timeline.
Slavery wasn’t really thing about I think it’s a stretch to compare slavery in Canada to what happened in the United States and the rest of the America’s.
@@nicholasrodriguez4990 It may not have been on the same scale, but it was still a thing, even if you don't want to acknowledge it.
OMG I LITERALLY JUST REWATCHED YOUR VIDEOS FOR THE FIRST TIME SINCE U KEFT YESTERDAY
Brazil would not be equal to the US, geography would still stunt Brazil’s growth
Jake Sauer it would be a lot more power full still
Actually no, it would be as equal as the US, because Brazil was an extraction colony in reality, but on this timeline it would most probably an Habitation colony in which the resources taken from the land would be reinvested bringing a lot of resources to the economy and with that Brazil would become an super power with time.
@Bruno Pereira I agree but the USA has like perfect geography. A giant river goes from one side to the other making trade extremely easy and cheap, it's mainly flat everywhere but the coasts making trade cheaper once more. And there is a shit ton of oil/valuable resources here.
@Bruno Pereira Culture has nothing to do with i,t if you want the example is just look Baron of Maua in 1850s gave a huge pull to industrialization only did not occur because of the system coming into slavery
A better world. 😢😢🥲
Nice to see you back.
One thing though. Could you please boost up the sound levels on your videos. I always end up having the PC speakers almost on max volume, and the sound on a mobile phone is just tragic.
Why are these timelines always better than ours?
To be honest I always thought you were a bodybuilder from the Balkans. I just assumed that based on the sound of your voice and your interest in history
I came across this, and realize I've not subscribed to your channel on this account. Welcoke back, man! You have always produced my favorite althistory content on CZcams, so my feed will be approximately 94.89% more interesting. I took the time to do the math, it checks out.
could you do a video on the Taiping rebellion?
I imagine there'd be alot less anti white sentiment and white guilt.
Then it is an excelent timeline... simply beautiful and magnificent...
@@benjaminjackboot6409 Amen.....
Trump wouldn't have won and we wouldn't be so divided as a nation.
I love this timeline. Slavery means you like being a backwards, backwater, 'My way or the Highway', 'Obey or Die' Totalitarian, Autocratic, Dictatorship.
Mαn the level of insight this channel offers is only comperable to Vox and Vice!
Damn what an ending this needs a part 2
Glad to have you back! And with this leviathan of a video as well
That’s a Very Cool Sword you’ve got man ⚔️
Your back, huzzah, huzzah, huzzah! I truly love your videos ; you try to best to explain the history. Glad your back friend.
You should write an althist book. Your scenarios have more thought and realism than nearly any others I've ever seen. Any of these taken from the right angle and during the right time period could prove to be fantastic. Even a short story could be great. You have so much althist potential.
Great stuff, great video, so happy to see this.
I love your channel, keep up the good work.
Jokes on you for that food segment, I'm watching this as I eat
Slavery was the worst thing to happen to the Americas.
I'm liking the new format so far!
Money is always a problem !! I hope it goes away completely one day !! It just adds to people’s ruthlessness
Correct
"Central America would have a lightly settled population"
America: It's free real estate
I remember this community being generally civil relative to other comment sections, and yet there seems to be quite a bit of racism here. I do hope that this is a one time thing, that these people are just temporarily here, because I want to keep my faith in this community.
Like what? I'm scrolling, and haven't found any yet.
@@Lodatzor The day this came out there were quite a few, likely buried by now, but for sure could find them if you keep looking.
@@marc9324 Fair enough. I was genuinely curious. I did eventually find some crap about "hur hur there'd be less crime in the US", so I see what you mean. Sad.
@@Lodatzor Yeah it is pretty sad lmao
Could you please make What if the Hungarian Revolution of 1956 was won by the Hungarian Rebels, and What if the Prague Spring of 1956 was successful ?
What about hungarian insurrection of 1848
*What if Whatiflist guy actually could make a pirate accent?*
Without exposure to African people, the Western world's concept of race would be different. In our timeline, "scientific racism" became a mainstream idea only in the middle 19th century, much inspired by the perceived inability of slaves of African origin. Western scholars would stick to the idea of black people as "noble savages". Racism would still exist, but probably not became as universally accepted as it was around 1900.
Western popular music would sound very different. Instead of improvized rhythm patterns typical to African-American music, we would hear static metres typical to European folk songs and marches, as well as Indigenous American soundbites.
The music part isn't completely accurate. Of course it would sound different, but Irish and Scottish rhythms and unique structural elements influenced the formation of Black American music genres. I don't think it can be said that American music would solely be similar to classical European music because the country would still be a melting pot
@@chrisfine6013That’s not really true. If you listen to traditional Scottish and English music and American music it doesn’t sound the same whatsoever. Our musicianship stems from Africa, the Brits didn’t sing or play instruments like Black Americans.
The only European aspect of American music are instruments. Although the electric guitar, bass and banjo aren’t European.
The Messiah is back! The Lord's representative has returned!
Do the crusades next! "What if the crusades had not happened..." or "If the crusades succeeded..." It would be interesting to think of a modern world where the Crusader States still existed.
Overall fantastic content! ;)
If the crusades were successful we would have much less terrorist bombings today...
@@jlab1264 Indeed, or maybe they would all be focused on the Crusaders, it would be an interesting alt-history story, wouldn't it?
Jack Margiotta I agree. If the crusades were successful it could go in a couple of different directions. One would possibly be bringing about Christianity in the Middle East and closer ties to the people there resulting in peace or it could go the other way and lead to persecution and constant battles.
You should do a video on what if America had became a monarchy.
@Iorclins Eveirnis yeah i saw the video a few months back on useful charts, a very great video by the way, I've seen other channels do what if videos but I still would like to see this channel do a what if America became monarchy, I think it would be cool and interesting to see what he could come up with like did with his what if Rome discovered the America's video.
The soil in new Zealand is excellent for growing crops ....we are a massive exporter and have a year round growing season I say this as a master horticulturist.
Your voice is very calming and relaxing.
You should make maps for your timelines. I would love to see what the world outside of South America would look like.
Also make your videos louder, I had headphones on and I had to put my phone to full blast.
Damn that seems like it would be a much better world tbh.
We probably wouldn't have rap music.
Whatifalthist: I like to cook a lot...
Me: Oh jeez here comes the Hello Fresh ad....
What if Oman became a super power? (Could you consider this one because I haven’t seen any alt history Oman even though it had been a colonizer but it just didn’t advance technologically but what if it did)
It did defeat the Portuguese but because they were Ibadi (neither Sunni or Shia) they were still anathema to the powerful Sunni Ottomans and Mughals nearby and were in direct conflict with the Shi'ite Safavids in Iran.
Before they knew it, British East India company was in the picture, and it was all over for them... Culminating in the humiliating 30 min "battle of Zanzibar" (shortest war in recorded history).
Rogue Oman is way too small to be a superpower in terms of population. It’s like wanting Belgium to be a superpower.
The Nova renaissance In 1800, Austria had a population of 23 Million. Mainland France had 26 Million. Mind you, the Austrians lacked the Austrian Netherlands, Milan, and Naples at the time (Napoleonic Wars).
@The Nova renaissance So? They were 'core' territory that Austria mobilized for the military, unlike the Omanese Empire, which was trading-based, like British India.
Austria also controlled the HRE (influence over Germany).
The Nova renaissance Because that’s like making Carthage Rome. The Omani empire was a trading empire largely based around slaves. If you changed it so that Oman could be part of a superpower, it wouldn’t be Oman anymore. It would be an Arabian Caliphate.
What if the Pirate Republic took over the Caribbean?
Why couldn’t this have been reality we really didn’t need the slave trade
Welcome back! We’ve missed you
Cotton was pretty important for industrialization, though, which you kind of ignored.
There was Bengal which supplied a lot of fabrics for the British industrial cities. The bigger question is the rubber since Belgium won't build their wealth of the Kongo nor would the Dutch East Indies.
@Metsarebuff 22 fair point, so the Dutch have a monopoly on rubber.
kankuj23 The Congo could produce Rubber without cutting off hands. Turns out though, it just wasn’t enough for the King’s liking.
A fuck ton of Rubber was also made in Brazil and Malaysia, though the former needed Slave Labor.
@@kankuj23 No, the British would also have a lot of rubber with Malaysia and Sri Lanka
Plus not having slavery would not mean no scramble for Africa since the scramble happened first for prestige reasons and the countries that partook in it had already outlawed slavery
@Fredinno Cotton fueled the industrial revolution. That’s why it was Britain then the US to industrialized and not say Sweden or Italian states.
What if the British Empire federated its empire?
They did in part. Almost all areas were there were a substantial population of White settlers were eventually became Dominions, with self-rule, but with the British Monarch as Head of State and the Privy Council as their Highest Legal Court. Ireland was the obvious exception. It's very proximity to England, seemed to give the British Establishment a blind spot, where the predominantly Catholic Irish were viewed with suspicion at best, and downright hostility, but the English were and still do seem content to use Ireland as a labour source. The areas of the empire that had a non-White population as the majority remained colonies, even though India was the biggest market for English goods with the largest population of all the British Empire colonies. In fact, the refusal to give India Dominion status empowered the steadily growing movement for independence. And Whatifalhist is right: although the wealth from its empire gave Britain a head start in industrialisation, they began to lose that advantage in the late 19th century because they had been so focused on extracting profits from their colonies, they had given little thought to investing in the economic development of those colonies. The Dominions, having self rule, did industrialise but, the Colonies never really developed beyond concentrating their economic output on goods Britain wanted. That would be a decision they would regret in the long run. Britain basically maintained a closed market. They did not want to import goods outside the Empire unless there was no alternative, and similarly, they wanted to maintain the flow of capital and goods from the colonies. So they never invested in anything but those goods. It is telling that India did not have its own industrial revolution until after the British left after World War II. Why? Britain did not want any competition for British industries. For example, in India the British grew cotton there but, transported it back to Lancashire's Cotton Mills to turn it into cloth, and then shipped the finished cloth and sold it to the Indians. Indian production of woven cotton was banned. So, India was in a one-sided relationship with Britain who took more than she gave. This tendency, encouraged poor economic management of India, and because they failed to build its economy, the returns from India declined. The British East India Company was the means by which India was conquered and bought into the Empire. But over time poor management bought about its bankruptcy, and the British State took over but, they were little better at running India. Even when leaving, the British tried to take as much as they could back to Britain. Arguably, until recently this hampered extensive economic development in India, and it still has a long way to go.
bbonner422 I meant if the constituent parts of its empire were integrated into full kingdoms of the UK, like Scotland. Or like what Cecil Rhodes wanted to see.
Dominion status was more like leaving a puppet state with self-rule.
3:30 your forgetting that chattel slavery is a newer thing. the romans had a very different type of slavery than what the antebellum south had.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_ancient_Rome
-What if the Titanic never sank?
-What if Julius Caesar wasn’t assassinated?
-What if Prohibition didn’t happen?
-What if Prohibition was still around?
-What if NASA’s Apollo Program never ended?
-What if cars were never invented?
-What if Thomas Dewey defeated Harry Truman?
cars never invented??????????????
they wouldve invented trains without rails then?