The Alternate History Thread.

[PMKeates]

Anecdotal evidence points toward another culprit however, Eve. According to the only source of information we have, Eve picked the Apple not Adam. So although no-one can prove categorically either way, there is absolutely nothing to suggest Adam picked the Apple, or indeed if it was an Apple.

Genesis doesn't specify which fruit it was beyond it being from the tree of knowledge of good and evil. Genesis does however state Eve as the one who picked the fruit.

Therefore He didn't.

I had a vision last night. God came to me and told me to come here and tell you that it was actually Santa Claus.

Well, now we know, I guess.

 

[Pipe & Slippers]

I thought it was agreed* that Adam picked the fruit, scoffed it and blamed Eve





*if you are a raging feminist

 

[Greebo]

Not read the whole thread so apologies if mentioned already but here's a few which crossed my mind

American Civil War - The South had won

Would blacks still be slaves today or would world pressure have altered their views just like South Africa?

Battle of Trafalgar - We lost

Potentially that would have allowed Spain to invade and we would have been a Spanish colony. Not sure where we would be now except speaking Spanish.

Pearl Harbour and Battle of Midway - If the Japanese had come back and sunk all the American carriers and hence America was undefended agianst invasion, Japan would have had a fair chance of winning the war way before the atom bomb was developed.

 

[Orcish-Horde]

did a representative of the Irish Government not offer condolancies on hearing news of the death of Adolf Hitler ? though I'm sure that this was diplomatic protocol.

Its wierd how the Nazis had all the numbers of the Jews living in Ireland though.

Anyhow trying to gauge reality through the mist of Anglo/Irish propaganda is perplexing to say the least.

Even if I'm a Plastic Irishman myself!

IIRC there was a small faction of Irish that considered "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" but there was certainly no wholesale support for the Nazis from the Irish.

I think it was more the fact that Britain had it's back turned so the IRA figured they had free reign to attack them. We were told get a handle on them or Britain would have to get involved if I remember correctly.

The problem for the Nazis if they had of gone into Ireland is that from the word go they would have been drawn into a land battle. The Northern Irish would never accepted them no matter how badly the war was going for the British. Within the southern Irish population there was a pro British population cough on the wrong side of partition 15% at the time of partition. Then there was the historical connection of Irish involvement in the British Army. The IRA may have backed the Nazis but the rest of the population would unlikely give any backing at best and would have more likely sided with Britain.

By fighting on the island of Ireland, the Nazis would been forced into a navel battle to keep its army resupplied or to even get there in the first place, I doubt they could have won that. Then Ireland itself has a shortage of large open areas in which armoured warfare could take place, the fighting would have been from hedge row to hedge row against and easily resupplied British army defending a section of its own population. It could have quickly draw the Nazis into a WW1 type battle. All the time keeping the British mainland safe, it could have also place Ireland in line for retribution from the British if they had of sided with the Nazis and lost. The Irish were not going to risk that given that they had nothing to gain other than a disgruntled British population in the north.

 

[4p]

Good book that

 

[Orcish-Horde]

Well one of Hitler's biggest mistakes was that he didn't follow the British across the channel at Dunkirk. The defence forces were in complete disarray after defeat in France and Hitler could have surged through Britain within a few weeks.

At that time he didn't have a Russian front, so he could have dealt Britain a massive clout in a short period of time.

The fact that he delayed was because he wanted to defeat the RAF before any potential invasion - big mistake! This delayed the invasion long enough so that defensive measures could be taken.

The attack on the RAF was also a shambles. The Luftwaffe switched from attacking airfields and aircraft factories to attacking London and other cities. This gave the RAF time to rebuild and repair. The Germans could have eliminated the RAF if they only stopped changing tack mid-battle.

Another theory I often thought about was that if D-Day got delayed again due to weather, it would have taken another 2 months or so before all the right conditions for landing were met again (regarding tides etc). I wonder would this have delayed the war enough for the Germans to get an atom bomb finished and wipe out London?

At the time of Dunkirk France had not yet been defeated and the British still had a large force in France. Every thing was still in the air at that time and could have ended in a German defeat if they went across the channel.

 

[lucky13]

Another one, what if Alexander the Great's army had not wanted to stop going? Plus what if he lived longer and the empire did not break up?

 

[Iraklis F.C.]

Another one, what if Alexander the Great's army had not wanted to stop going? Plus what if he lived longer and the empire did not break up?

i doubt this is the true story , that his army told him we cannot go anymore. He probably realized his army cannot go on forever and is stretched to its limits , but as stubborn he was he came up with this story blaming his soldiers rather the fearless Alexander

 

[Jono8]

What if mummy hitler had a miscarriage.

 

[lucky13]

i doubt this is the true story , that his army told him we cannot go anymore. He probably realized his army cannot go on forever and is stretched to its limits , but as stubborn he was he came up with this story blaming his soldiers rather the fearless Alexander

Ok but does the point not stand? What if he carried on and the troops were resupplied and in high morale?

I thought people were looking at ideas, not picking apart other peoples small inaccuracys with petty details?

 

[XeNoN89]

What if America never gained independance from us? How powerful would the British Empire become?

 

[Gaidin109]

i doubt this is the true story , that his army told him we cannot go anymore. He probably realized his army cannot go on forever and is stretched to its limits , but as stubborn he was he came up with this story blaming his soldiers rather the fearless Alexander

Not according to Ptolemy or Aristotle who both wrote about the Armies desire to return home to Macedon and Persia. As they were there, I would trust they knew better than us.

 

[Iraklis F.C.]

History back in the day wasnt a perfected science , they were including local myths and tales in their historic books. BTW Aristotle went to India with Alexander ? i doubt it . And dont take for granted what these historians tell, its not 100% accurate and we have many examples of history made according to interests . Sure troops were tired and asking for return to mainland Greece but they were asking for it since the capture of Babylon

 

[Gaidin109]

History back in the day wasnt a perfected science , they were including local myths and tales in their historic books. BTW Aristotle went to India with Alexander ? i doubt it . And dont take for granted what these historians tell, its not 100% accurate and we have many examples of history made according to interests . Sure troops were tired and asking for return to mainland Greece but they were asking for it since the capture of Babylon

Ptolemy went everywhere with Alexander and wrote copious amounts on the way. As did Callisthenes, Nearchus and Aristobolus, while their accounts no longer survive, many who had access to them do, such as Arrian, Plutarch, Diodorus and Justin.

Do you feel your ill-informed opinion has more validity than their histories based purely on eyewitness accounts?

 

[mushroomsoup]

what if the armies of Assyria had not of failed to take Jerusalem in 701BC?

Isaiah's prophecy that god would save the city would not of come true, ruining the new monotheistic religions credibility. It says in the old testament that 'Yahweh', during the night bought death to some 185000 Assyrian troops - an event nowadays attributed to disease (recorded to have plagued the area at the time).

If, disease had not beaten the armies of Assyria - Jerusalem would have been pillaged and destroyed, and the (then) new monotheistic religion of the inhabitants would have not of flourished, westen civilsation would look very different had its spiritual and philosophical semetic roots been wiped out.

 

[Gaidin109]

What if Noah was not a very good handyman?

Or Lucifer never argued with God?

Or Alexander moved against a small city called Rome?

Or the Jews didn't return to Palestine in 1948?

Or the Iranian Shah wasn't deposed in '79?

Or China never had the Red Revolution?

 

[Iraklis F.C.]

Ptolemy went everywhere with Alexander and wrote copious amounts on the way. As did Callisthenes, Nearchus and Aristobolus, while their accounts no longer survive, many who had access to them do, such as Arrian, Plutarch, Diodorus and Justin.

Do you feel your ill-informed opinion has more validity than their histories based purely on eyewitness accounts?

So Aristotle wasnt with Alexander , talking about ill informed opinions . Dude the story tells that his troops didnt want to go on-OK , this ISNT the only and true reason behind his decision to stop . The rising resistance from local tribes eastwards , the elephants which made his cavalry panicking , the steel making know-how of indians did persuade him and his troops they would die 100% in the attack. Alexander advised his generals and intelligence and understood he couldnt win this campaign.

I told you historians these days were mixing true facts with legends and fiction , you cannot trust them 100% . Unless you really believe Nearchos heard sirines and fairies on an island of Pakistan on the way back home.

 

[Gaidin109]

So Aristotle wasnt with Alexander , talking about ill informed opinions . Dude the story tells that his troops didnt want to go on-OK , this ISNT the only and true reason behind his decision to stop . The rising resistance from local tribes eastwards , the elephants which made his cavalry panicking , the steel making know-how of indians did persuade him and his troops they would die 100% in the attack. Alexander advised his generals and intelligence and understood he couldnt win this campaign.

I told you historians these days were mixing true facts with legends and fiction , you cannot trust them 100% . Unless you really believe Nearchos heard sirines and fairies on an island of Pakistan on the way back home.

So the Commanders and the Army DID want to return home. Aristotle did journey with Alexander at the beginning, was he in India?, it's unlikely, but the others were, they were also privy to the relevant information firsthand. Also Alexander had no need to 'make up' stories to tell his men to do what they wanted to anyway.

Was there a myriad of reasons to return home?, definitely. But this doesn't preclude the wishes of his commanders as being the overriding one.

Justin, Plutarch and the like are hardly modern historians either.