One huge issue. Timur and later the Safavids would have conquered most of if not the entirety of Anatolia and Turco-Persian culture would have been a lot more prominent with Shia Islam and mixes between old Turkic beliefs and Shia Islam would have been a huge cultural influence in Anatolia. Many Turks had also become Orthodox, this could have stayed as the norm in border regions near Constantinople. You cant build a succesful empire sprawling out of Anatolia without either PErsia or balkans in medieval times.
My biggest gripe about this is that you manage to understand how germans and dutch could form a hybrid culture, but the Greco-Romans just become greek. They would likely form a state called Romania (they already called their realm this), closer identifying with that nationalistic sentiment than with a greek nation state.
Holy = it didn't need Papal approval, it held its own legitimacy. Roman = it ruled italy & held (some) Roman traditions. Empire = it had an Emperor, who had primacy.
@Based_Gigachad_001The idea that "being Roman" is the same as "being Latin" came from the Enlightenment and Romanticism, in late antiquity and the beginning of the Middle Ages "Roman" had very little to do with Rome itself, But it was actually related to the empire as a whole.Therefore, those born with citizenship in Greece, Egypt, Spain, England and parts of Germany were ROMANS, regardless of whether he was ethnically non-Latin.
@Based_Gigachad_001 If you think that "Roman" was an ethnicity I have some news for you. The early Romans were certainly ethnically Latin but as they expanded, more and more non-latin and later also non-italic peoples became part of the Roman civic identity. Also, the Germans had been serving under the Romans since the times of Caesar. The Germans didn't "destroy" Rome, they dismantled the western emperorship but they continued on all other roman institutions, and eventually made their own recreation of the western empire. Hell, there had already been multiple non ethnically Italian emperors such as Thrax, Philip the Arab, Constantine, Septimius Severus.
I think one major misconception here is that germany would be more centralised in the short term than in OTL. France for example was for hundreds of years a decentralised mess, making the hre look as a unified state in comparison. It was largely german tradition that let to a lot of internal fracturing and not squabbles with the pope per se. Although having the king able to exercise more power in germany instead of venturing into italy from time to time again definetly helps. German elective tradition would be a huge obstacle to overcome for the german kings and will be a huge contributer for decentralisation for years to come, so bohemia joining germany is still very likely.
I would to a large Part agree the only state at which I could see centralisation would be in a conflict with France simmilar to the 100 Years war... sicne the Ruler must be strong enough to deal with Outside threads, but even then it is not a given as we see in the example of France.
This is a fascinating road-not-taken! I like the use of "Dutch" to refer to all Germans, but I gotta say I'm gonna miss those wacky Teutonic Knights...
@@theChaosKe Makes sense! Of course, the Teutonic Knights being a crusading order, it would have been very on-brand for them to leave Prussia for somewhere else once they'd finished the job. I could imagine them showing up in Morocco or somewhere... "Hi, we're the Teutonic/Dutch Knights (we'll supply etymology upon request). We are here to fight you!"
Well Teutonic Knights would certainly still exist but not in Prussia, as i guess poland didn't go through fracturing meaning that a more unified Force could take care of the prussians instead of one Duke of Mazovia that brought them in to deal with the pagans and they decided to remain there
Yeah I am a german here and dutch is just by far the closest germanic language to german. When you read nutrient value, then half of the dutch words just like german with more o‘s and all.
@@Backfyre08 True, many of the words of both languages are cognates meaning that in both languages you can expect very similar words for the same thing. One thing that confuses me oft is the fact that people are so adamant that the Dutch and Germans are practically a world apart in relation to one another. Another thing that I have noticed is that the cultures are very similar. The Dutch people being linked culturally, linguistically, and genetically with most North Sea Germans; Platt-Deutsch Volk (North Germans), Denamarkisch (Danish), Frisianisch (Frisians), Norðwegisch (Nordic), Ænglaisch (English), and to a more stretched extant; Swedeisch (Swedish), and Hoch-Deutsch Volk (Middle and Southern Germans).
@@Backfyre08In the east of the netherlands there's a dialect we call 'plat', which is almost mutually inteligible with the german 'Platt' or Niedersachsisch. Only a few things needed to have gone differently in history and the netherlands wouldn't have split off from the HRE, adding a bunch of dutch and flemish provinces to the german states It would've been a behemoth, German kraftsmanschip and land armies & Dutch mercantilism and navy would've made for a three way rivalry between Britain, France and Dütchland for sure
Rome turning into Greece would be very hard to justify imo. The thing that prompted them to become Greece in our own timeline was the fact that the Romans fighting for independence from the ottomans were physically from Greece, whereas the Romans in Anatolia were more content. This drove the Romans fighting for freedom to distinguish themselves from the Romans content with ottoman rule by classifying themselves as Greeks. With a continuous imperial government in Constantinople, and holding lands outside of Greece (mainly Moesia and Thrace) a Greek identity never emerges because it would be directly at odds with their highly prestigious Roman identity
Agree with this, I also don't think the Beyliks would completely centralize, I don't expect the Romans to completely retake Anatolia, but I disagree with them losing as much as they did.
I could see them coming to an understanding that their ethnicity was Greek, but that they still claimed to be the only true Roman continuation. Eventually they wouldn't be able to ignore that they were ethnic Greek/Anatolian Greek speakers, but they would still claim their civic identity as Roman.
I have alot of critism, don't take it the wrong way its just disagreements on the way you have history going and sometimes just the lack of explanation on certain changes. this video is well done and enjoyable. 5:30 the Lutician tribes should be part of the Kingdom of germany by this point. it was under german control since the 920s atleast (the march of Gero and Billung.) they only rebeled in the 980s, meaning they would be seen as german kingdom territoritories not HRE territories in this timeline. and so there is no reason the reincorperation wars wouldn't happen resulting in german rule again in 1035, just as german kingdom rather than HRE. even the Obotrites should probably be conquered. since they were raiding german lands, even burning down hamburg, and were very anti-christian. there is both strong religious and secular reasons to conquer them. 5:40 you have egerland (what is now Chebsko) as part of bohemia even though it was part of bavaria in the 1100s and only became part of bohemia after the dutchy joined the HRE (which doesn't happen here), not even immediately after but only in 1322. so it would be part of Germany not bohemia (and bohemia would have a rounder tip) and never join bohemia unless conquered (unlikely since germany is united). bohemia should look more like this: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Duchy_of_Bohemia_locator_map_(1029).svg 6:30 I don't agree. sweden expanded eastwards when it was christian for relgious reasons despite not being close to the pope. and it was happening enmasse even into already christian areas as the germans simply had a large surplus population and superior technology to the slavs. especially interms of landless noble sons. If anything the push eastwards would be stronger, as there is no energy spent on keeping the italian states within the HRE and thus more energy would be pushed against less controversial directions (non-Christians, and non-Catholics). there would still be german dominated crusader states, as the german population and family dynamics would still result in lots of german nobles seeking lands and titles and lots of non-nobles looking to settle outside of their places of birth. 7:22 I don't see why the byzantines are this positively affected by the change in germany/italy. 7:22 also I am sorry but why does germany lose land to poland and bohemia here? germany would be way too dominant ecconomically and militarily. this was a period of german ethnic and poltical expansion OTL and I don't see why making them more united and taking away the italy distraction would weaken them to the slavs. and you don't even explain why it happens in the video. when you make an alternate timeline you need to explain why you make divergences, especially when the previous divergences make it less likely without explanation. if anything the more unified germany should have more expansion than OTL, you need to explain why it shrinks instead. 8:22 why does Poland unite with Lithuania? historically that was because of the threat from the Teutons causing them to side with the catholic poles in marriage alliances eventually resulting in a PU. but in your timeline you erased the german element in the northern crusades (which i disagree with) replaced with poland. so purely based on your timeline they should hate poland and go with the other option they had at the time, the eastern slavs. ie there should be a 'Russia-Lithuania' in your timeline [specifically a Lithuania-Muscovy, which is also what most nobility wanted due to the closer ties with the rus peoples, which becomes a Russia-Lithuania] , not a Poland Lithuania. similarly why does germany take over bohemia? its not super strong comparitively in this timeline, but its not a weak state either. I feel it deserves atleast a mention. 8:40 why. you don't say why. based on 11:24 map and the fact many germans are stated to be outside the empire on this map, combined with the fact the german migration to bohemia was never stated to not happen. combined with centuries of dirrect german rule by a centralised german state that sees non-germans as oppressors as stated in the video, I don't understand why the 1800s (12:30) and more importantly modern (12:42) maps are smaller than the 11:24 maps. the modern map especially, as while empires trying to hold german lands make sense, they are unlikely to hold them after the advent of nationalism something established to be arisen in Germany itself. the modern german borders should be more than the 11:24 one by your timelines set up. especially as you set up a german USA equvilient (13:51) meaning germany should have an american juggernaut of its own to support it in the wars of the 20th century, reduceing the chances of a OTL post-ww2 style forced migration. the 1800s map of eastern europe is just unrealistic. I don't see how Russia-Germany could fall apart so much in the timeline establish in such a short time here. that being a 1900s map makes way more sense. that kind of map can happen with the right set up but i don't see it happening so much so quickly in 1800s mindsets.
While I do agree about the permanent border with the french, the way you displayed the polish as being similar to out timeline I think germany would still claim more lands from them.
Maybe maybe not as we don't have much look into politics of the states, and for all we know Polish could not suffer from the fracturing period for over 200 years and only unify fully back in like 1400s, meaning that Germans couldn't easily get that wanted land from a stronger opponent or some other reasons
@@legchairhistorian5496 What Germans never besides World Wars reached past vistula as a border and those were just temporary. Oder i can understand but Germans without any small states on the border wouldn't feel significant need to conquer much past elbe
@@Woah9394Italy would be significantly richer. The south doesn’t spend centuries under subjugation, the north never suffers from the Italian wars, Italy also unites in the 1700th century. Germany would be significantly richer without the world wars. France would have a significantly higher population with the napoleonic wars. Spain would never fall to the Habsburgs. Iberia would probably be United.
“Not holy not Roman not an empire”, but also it was endorsed by the pope, and also lasted for hundreds of years and was an important state in the center of Europe, BuT it WAsNt RoMAn
As with many of your videos there is a cool scenario presented but I think you never explain some fundamental assumptions and following outcomes. For example why would Poland be stronger because of a stronger Germany, I get why the Germans may never have pushed on Eastwards into the Baltic and colonized Prussia (although I think this would have happened anyway because the pope still would have wanted to Christianize the Baltic region and it is easier using the stronger German kingdom than Poland) but why wouldn't the German marches still be established and pushed Eastward all the same? The rise of the Turks in Anatolia is also unlikely if you start with the assumption of a stronger Byzantium. France being more successful against a unified Germany is very unlikely, especially if you are going to include Burgundy as a sovereign entity establishing itself. Protestantism would still rise as it has less to do with the HRE and more to do with North Western Germanic culture in combination with the heavy handed response from the Catholics resulting in the schism. I have no problem with the colonial stuff as it is impossible to neither falsify or verify. To conclude I think it would have been rather similar to the alternative scenario of the Kaiserreich, or Austria in our timeline but even larger and similarly multi-ethnic however stronger and more stable. Also I think you missed some things that could have been interesting: - Asian, Australian and North American colonies as the Germans kind of merged with the Dutch (I think a German Australia is more likely than a South American Colony due the Dutch explorers in Oceania and colonial activity in Indonesia). - The Reformation or some similar schism. - Alternative world wars, maybe France and Poland got beaten so bad by Germany and Russia in the alternative timeline so that they turned Nazi instead.
It Was Not, it didn't have Papal Land for a majority of it's history it didn't have Rome for majority of it's history and it didnt have big unified states for majority of it's history so it was neither of those three
@@KiraiKatsuji You do not need to hold papal lands to be considered to be Holy as the coordination of the emperor gave him the popes blessing as well as the churches blessing which makes it holy. So? Neither did the eastern roman empire yet they're still roman. I suggest you look up the two swords theology and the historically view of what rome actually was within the medieval world. You do not need to be a big, unified state to be a empire. France was a collection of small counties and larger duchies for hundreds of years, yet no one questions if it is actually a kingdom. You misunderstand feudal states if you think a centralized reign is the mark of a empire.
Only it was all of these things. Voltaire was quite wrong, historians agree on that. His confusion was dismay, he never stated it directly and what he perceived was the last 50 years of this 1.000-year empire.
With a German South American colony would mean it is less likely millions of Germans immigrated to North America which has a major impact on American culture.
8:50 I also think it is strange how you assume germany would be less fragmented without the Emperor's power being drained by the struggles in Italy, but you don't think Italy would end up more centralized after making the fact that a capable Roman (Italian) Emperor prevents Otto The Great's conquest of Northern Italy the crux of your alternate timeline.
I'm so sick of the HLE slander. It had rome, and it was quite definitely holy given how the Emperor had to be crowned by the pope. It was a dominant european power for a long time
7:56 I don't think there would be a strong Burgundian faction in France in this scenario. Without the fiefs of the low countries falling to them, the Dukes of Burgundy would be far less influential.
the lack of a protestant reformation would radically change the early development of the US- i honestly don't think we can just assume it'll be similar to how it is in OTL.
Loved this scenario. I would have liked to see if Greece was still big in 2024 though. Always love to see Greek and German respect. The German South America was a surprise but it's a nice one. I would have liked to learn how they got that big considering the 2 other powers that were there at the time
my big issue is that you just copy-paste the problems of the HRE onto the Italian Roman Empire you replaced otl's HRE with: An Italian HRE probably wouldn't have the issues of disunity or an elective leader, the Italian Roman Empire, imo, would consolidate in the same way other European states such as France and the hypothetical kingdom of Germany here. The title of Emperor probably would end up becoming a hereditary or de-facto hereditary title as Emperors curb the Pope's authority till he is in a similar state to the Patriarch of Constantinople was at the same time. Thus the Great Schism would probably be very much difference, especially as fillioque as Roman Catholics see it nowadays was a frankish innovation. My opinion, we might see high ranking clerics in the the Western kingdoms (Germany, france, etc.) declaring independence from the "Roman Churches", supported by their kings who want more independence from the IRE controlled Papacy. Alternatively, perhaps at some point (lets say a century or two after our Great Schism) a pope dies and an especially anti-fillioqueist Pope is appointed, German bishops (or cardinals, still not sure if there still would be cardinals as cardinals were established around the point of departure from otl) appoint one of their own as a competing Pope, excommunications go both ways, now it's Frankish Catholicism. Further, I imagine the Crusades would end up being a bit more successful and wide reaching, particularly seeing European armies form a coalition to attack other parts of the Islamic world, Northern Africa and Iberia for instance, the reconquista may even end a bit sooner. Historians might Identify the Crusades as a time period rather than a part of the medieval period. Not gonna say the Crusaders keep Jerusalem for any significant period of time, at most it gets traded back and forth and develops an unique identity, based on a settlement to coexist between Muslims, various kinds of Christians, and Jews, from the waves of different peoples who pass through. But I imagine you'd probably see a weaker islamic world skewed more south and east than otl with the Eastern Romans probably managing to keep a lot more of western and Northern Anatolia with a series of Christianized Turkish vassals on their eastern border. So there might be a Latinized Tunis as part of the IRE, a potentially Coptic Kingdom of Egypt, maybe East Roman Antioch or Syria, Hispanic Kingdoms taking over Morrocco, (for the sake of pretty borders I think a fully United Hispania would form from inheritances and conquests, not implausible since there won't be any Hapsburgs with international prominence in this timeline) The Renaissance, with a longer lasting and Stronger Eastern Roman Empire, would happen very much differently given that Greek intellectuals would not have to flee to the west to kickstart the Italian Renaissance. My opinion is we see a Greek Renaissance that would spread to Italy via Trade and from Italy to the rest of Europe, whether by trade or by Italian and Greek Universities educating western intellectuals and clerics. I will agree that most of "Protestantism" would probably happen, probably more along the lines of the English Reformation where the Government of a Kingdom splits from the greater church and then implements changes onto the Church from above. For the sake of a pretty timeline, lets say Churches in the west split from the pentarchy over the Fillioque and other issues, then the national churches become semi-protestant from monarchs with more protestant minded peoples in their councils. Thus the counter reformation instead becomes a devolution of Papal authority granting Autocephaly to Hispania, maybe France, and the British Isles while Scandinavia and Germany remain protestant. I think Poland would keep Bohemia and form a personal union with Hungary but I've outlined this scenario enough
This video was interesting until 7mins. After this point the author just takes historic stuff that happened in real life and invents some bs to justify how that would still happen in the invented timeline (rise of venice, , ottomans, burgundy, aragon taking islands, and SOMEHOW german napoleon??, etc), thereby making it both unrealistic and boring. None of these events would likely happen because of the new power dynamic you established in the first 7mins. Whats the point of making alt history and creating a cool concept like an italian hre if italy is SOMEHOW fked by venice and aragon cause of streamlined plot? Honestly this is most likely a scrip form chat gpt so dont bother watching after 7mins
Good video! Only thing that really stands out to me is Poland. While my EU4 player self would love to see a strong Poland, I’d doubt they would remain strong with a united Germany as their neighbor. Germany and Russia would definitely come together to take land from them, maybe even the Danes too. They may put up a better fight with them having the resources of Bohemia, but unfortunately geography works against them.
Interesting scenario, but without the world wars, I don't think the US or Dutch America would be the largest economies, I think Germany would be the largest.
If the Holy Roman Empire was only Italy. The question would be, does the eastern Roman Empire ask the Holy Roman Empire ask the Germans or the holy Romans for help. The reason I would be asking is if the eastern Romans ask the holy Romans for help the Teutonic knights don’t settle Prussia, making the Prussians someone else, making Germany something else.
As a German I honestly like this scenario, although I am saddened by Prussia/Königsberg never existing in this world, what we have gained in the west, most notably controlling all of German speaking Switzerland, Elsass Lothringen, and the lowlands, makes up for what we didn’t have in the east in this timeline
Das war ein sehr unrealistischer Teil des Szenarios. Ein stärkeres Polen konnte in der echten Welt nicht gegen schwächere Nachbarn bestehen, also wie sollte in diesem Szenario ein schwächeres Polen gegen stärkere Nachbarn bestehen?
Im sorry but I strongly disagree on the Anatolia take. In no way realistically would any of the reasons you brought up supplement the survival of the Eastern Roman Empire and the Sultanate of Rum.
And no 4th crusade collapsing byzantium doesn’t leave the opportunity to ottoman rise to prominence in anatolia and the balkans. Rum is too big, but these events are very logical. The fall of constantinople (the first time) is what led to every development after in anatolia.
No Sack of constantinopole meaning a stronger Bizantium means harder time conquering it, also like Different timeline means different figures that could be better or worse for both sides
@@KiraiKatsuji yes but for all of the reasons you and @davidozemberg9295 brought up are big ifs, and the Byzantine empire was inevitably going to collapse due to eastern pressures, a little extra strength from the 4th crusade, wouldn't "In my opinion" make a large enough difference to prevent the collapse of Byzantium.
I really want to make maps and i watched your video on how you make your maps but im having trouble finding a base map so i would appreciate it if you could post a link to your base map? If you can and you see this thanks, if not then its fine
I don't think the eastern Roman Empire would reform into Greece mainly because there is no evidence of ir, even during the ottoman era, for several more centuries people there still called themselves romans
Also there would be many more French in those German lands, mainly in southern Belgium, in total in those borders of yours there may be 6-7 million French speakers, so more like 3-4 percent of the population
How do you justify Romania taking all those lands? Hungary was a strong centralised state, seen as capable of become as great as England of France in the 14th- 15th, it had big gold mines and fertile lands. The amount of Romanians in transilvania would be much less since they never moved there during Ottoman war and they are never invited by the Austrians to resettle. Wallachia was a weak and poor state, I don't see how they would achieve this.
Hmm Well it would require the Mongols to be worse at conquering europe which would change a bit, but probably it would end in a state occupying similar niche to russia
okay big fan of the sentiment but the video has way too big a scope to function as a proper alternate history video. A lot of assumptions had to be made that basically turn this into complete fiction by the early modern era.
Yeah that what comes around with making an alternate history, as no matter when you start after 50 years it becomes total fiction as nothing could be fully predicted
It's a very good video but I have two complaints: 1-Bulgaria didn't submit to the Ottomans and lose it's identity so there's no reason why it should to the Greeks and, 2-If Russia doesn't have a communist revolution(it seems significant enough to mention) or maintains Tsarist rule then I don't see why it couldn't greatly overtake Germany to have 250-350 million people overall.
1.Bulgarian Land was under Bizantium for a long time and could just fuse together but be under name of Greece due to it having greater historical prestige. 2.Well we skipped over 100 years so it could happen but we don't know, and also we don't know about's it borders, for all we know it could have lost entire south in europe over that time and be left with half of their territory be not ideal for most things
@@KiraiKatsuji Bulgaria had developed a strong national identity by then and the adversity between the Hellenic Greeks and Slavic Bulgarians in terms of language culture and history. As for your second point, that does seem reasonable.
Yeah the difference is the Bulgarians were Orthodox, like the Greeks, and at the time national identity had more to do with religion than language or ethnicity. The Bulgarians, like the Greeks, remained separate during Ottoman rule because the Empire was Muslim and oppressed them. In this timeline Byzantium doesn't oppress the Bulgarians, it simply assimilates them like other Orthodox linguistic minorities
@@georgios_5342 It doesn't matter if they were both Orthodox or not, the Bulgarians by then had the mindset that the Byzantines were their arch geopolitical nemesis and similarity in religious sect wouldn't ease that. They spoke two very different languages, had a history and mindset of competition and adversarial attitudes so the Bulgarians would not take too kindly to assimilation. By your standards, Ukraine should have long been assimilated by now but they retain a distinct identity from Russia, despite both being Orthodox, sharing the same alphabet and a nearly identical language with a history of unity and shared struggle, the Ukrainians having a flat land without mountains to make assimilation hard, along with vast intermarriage between the two. The Bulgarians are much less primed for assimilation so they should very much retain a distinct identity.
13:00 Good video, but german and dutch were already diverging languages by 1000 In fact, up until around the 17th century, the vast majority of northern germans already spoke a somewhat standardized low german (platt) variant form lübeck. If the german kingdom had remained united, the dutch as low lying trade fairing people would still have been seperate from the rest of germany. Even when people in an area in germany what we call the "niederrhein" spoke dutch until the 20th century, they were still not seen as "dutch" by the dutch. This is because being dutch was not just about language, but moreso about a trading culture. The low countries would have not existed of course, but a seperate regional and eventual national identity wouldve still emerged. Another identity that wouldve been present wouldve been the hanseates or saxons. Like i said, around the year 1000 there were basically 4 west german languages (excl english: German, Saxon (would become platt), Frankish (would become dutch) and Frisian. Frisian was bound to be absorbed due to geography, but saxon couldve lived on. It also had a seperate identity and it was only because of the fact that the teutonic order existed (and protestantism and nationalism coming too late) that its not a seperate state. Saxon identity, similiar to dutch identity, was defined by trading merchants from cities (Bremen, Hamburg, Lübeck, Rostock) but with more focus on the eastern north sea and baltic sea, whereas the dutch focused on trade with anyone they could find. If germany had remained a kingdom, i find it unlikely that these forces would not pull the country in 3. Whereas the south and center (german speaking, 1/2 of the population) would be more interested in continental affairs, and agriculture and self governenance and democracy (see reason why switzerland exists, see german peasents war) the north would be more interested in trade, colonization, world affairs and education. That is not to say that the south and center would be poor, but its just massively diverging interests.
Dutch is actually just around 1/3 of the frankish language, the low franconian part. The low refers to not being affected by the high german consonant shift, the rest of the franconian sphere became part of high german (middle and upper franconian). So i do think its a bit more tricky to predict feelings of identity.
@@kimashitawa8113 Not really. Dutch identity didnt exist. The same way german identity didnt exist. National Identity didnt really exist until the french revolution. Before then, the vast vast majority of people simply lived their day to day lives without worrying about things like that. The thing that did happen was polities being influenced by common interests. Like I said, the dutch had interest in trading, while the more continental germans were more interested in continental affairs. That is a simle fact of reality and cannot be changed. The evidence for this is pretty clearly the meuse-rheinish dialects which are part of teh dutch language and have been since old high german consonant shift that occured in the 7th century. The meuse-rheinish dialects (if you look up maps) are/were spoken in germany, but the netherlands never had any aspirations for them joining the netherlands. Why? Because dutch identity was not just about language, but about economic and political interest. Those being trade. People in duisburg could speak with people in rotterdam. The dutch knew this, but didnt consider those people important/dutch. Why? Because of diverging interest. Poeple in that region simply had way more to do with someone from leipzig or frankfurt than someone from antwerp or amsterdam. Additionally, if you look up "niederfränkisch" on german wikipedia, you can see a couple of maps that clearly outline that by 580AD there was already a split between west germanic languages. This is a simle fact of geogprahy. People in close proximity to each other with similiar dialects will eventually form a linguistic bottleneck whereby their dialects converge but they diverge from the larger dialect continuum. The same thing happen in the hanseatic league at its hayday. Low German was THE language of the baltic sea and trade. It served as the lingua franca of northern europe. But with its decline beginning in the 15th century, it became replaced by high german in the printing press in the 15th and 16th century. Had the hanseatic league remained important until the age of enlightenmend, its likely that lwo german would have remained a literary language and also a language of the people there. The difference between what happened to the dutch (low franconians) and what happened to the saxons (platt german) is the simple fact that dutch economic interest (trade around the world) remained important with the discovery of the americas and new trade routes, while hanseatic/saxon economic interest dwindled in importance from that point on. The dutch always were going to have different interests from the german. Im german myself, but that is a simple reality. The dutch are called the dutch adn the germans are called the germans because the french and english had way more to do with dutch people than with germans. Depsite someone from vienna and amsterdam having the same word for themselves (dietsch, teutsch, duits, etc.) it was the modern day dutch that suceeding in that being the name for their people. High germans were called almains and low germans hanseates in english. This shows that despite supposed linguistic and ethnic ties being more important than economic ties, it does not result in those linguistic/ethnic ties being more important than trade/economics. An english person did not care that dutch people might have spoken the same language as someone from duisburg, germany. For it mattered to them who they did their trade with. I am not saying that english people created dutch identiy. I am saying that this fact shows that dutch and germa identity were already diverging.
@@theChaosKe With frankish i was referring to old franconian which was essentially low franconian. The consonant shift (that made köln and trier not be a part of low franconian / dutch) already occured in the 7th century furthering my point that geography already predicted national identity. It is of course not guaranteed that geography determines if a one part of a country (low countries) stay with another part of a country (germany) as can be seen by the fact that low germans are in germany today depsite low german being a historically very important literaray and trade langauge. BUt my point is that dutch economic interests persisted into the age of englightenment. Hanseatic trade declined around the time of the printing press, i.e. when high german became standardized, the former hanseatic cities adopted high german and didnt adopt a standardized low germanv variant simply because the hanseatic league had declined by that point due to long distance shipping making regional trade (hanseatic baltic trade) become unimportant. That historical fact was always going to happen. Local trade was never going to keep up with world trade (think of dutch spice trade to formosa or indonesia). And world trade could only hapen in the age of englightenment which coincides with age of nationalism. That is to say: dutch identity through language and shared economic interest would by definition carry over into the age of nationalism making them way more likely to want indepdence later on. Meanwhile low germans had nearly completely adapted the high german language once nationalism arose and are therefore an undisputed part of germany. You can predict a lot of things with geography
Awesome video! But say I was wondering if you could make like an alternate history where the Islamic caliphate never fell ? I think that would be a really good video.
I like your maps and country statistics. Very entertaining. That's why I don't watch Possible History. His stuff is realistic but it's freaking boring.
Very likely, I didn't show the entire colonial empire. Everything the Dutch successfully colonized, Germany would likely have colonized even more successfully. So South Africa remains German/Dutch, for example, with the British never capturing it.
Its so hillaious with the copium that Skåne, Blekinge and Halland is Swedish, and in every video bro makes Denmark gets Scania back somehow even if the scenario is what if the spannish american war never happened lol
![Noob To Max With DRAGON REWORK In Blox Fruits [FULL MOVIE]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/LnBMOinoOvA/mqdefault.jpg)
Play War Thunder now for free to get a massive free bonus pack of vehicles, boosters, and more: playwt.link/neatling
What if Bohemia Stayed a power?
what if PLC survived in a smaller nation-state
2 PART ALT Timeline, please.
What if America Went full Colonial?
and
What if the Imperial Federation was Successful?
One huge issue. Timur and later the Safavids would have conquered most of if not the entirety of Anatolia and Turco-Persian culture would have been a lot more prominent with Shia Islam and mixes between old Turkic beliefs and Shia Islam would have been a huge cultural influence in Anatolia. Many Turks had also become Orthodox, this could have stayed as the norm in border regions near Constantinople. You cant build a succesful empire sprawling out of Anatolia without either PErsia or balkans in medieval times.
If the wars of religion didn't happen would mean a stronger spain and colonies
My biggest gripe about this is that you manage to understand how germans and dutch could form a hybrid culture, but the Greco-Romans just become greek. They would likely form a state called Romania (they already called their realm this), closer identifying with that nationalistic sentiment than with a greek nation state.
But didn't he say Greco Bulgarian in 1600s part, where he said Greco Romans
Netherlands and germans are like sister states
Greek means Greek speaking, not necessarily Greek in name
So like, Low German cultural hegemony?
@@georgios_5342 And if i'm not incorrect isn't cyrilic like an offshoot of the greek Alphabet done by Bulgarians
Holy = it didn't need Papal approval, it held its own legitimacy.
Roman = it ruled italy & held (some) Roman traditions.
Empire = it had an Emperor, who had primacy.
@Based_Gigachad_001the people that fought for centuries with Roman’s against the Huns you mean 90% of the late Roman army was german
@Based_Gigachad_001Germanics ≠ Germans
@Based_Gigachad_001The idea that "being Roman" is the same as "being Latin" came from the Enlightenment and Romanticism, in late antiquity and the beginning of the Middle Ages "Roman" had very little to do with Rome itself, But it was actually related to the empire as a whole.Therefore, those born with citizenship in Greece, Egypt, Spain, England and parts of Germany were ROMANS, regardless of whether he was ethnically non-Latin.
@Based_Gigachad_001 If you think that "Roman" was an ethnicity I have some news for you. The early Romans were certainly ethnically Latin but as they expanded, more and more non-latin and later also non-italic peoples became part of the Roman civic identity. Also, the Germans had been serving under the Romans since the times of Caesar. The Germans didn't "destroy" Rome, they dismantled the western emperorship but they continued on all other roman institutions, and eventually made their own recreation of the western empire. Hell, there had already been multiple non ethnically Italian emperors such as Thrax, Philip the Arab, Constantine, Septimius Severus.
@Based_Gigachad_001 keep coping nerd.
Trying to watch a video about the Holy Roman Empire that doesn't quote Voltaire: impossible
Not Holy, Not Roman and Not an Empire moment
Because nobody else cared to make quotes about them
He lost me with that.
And the quote is wrong. It is not actually a quote by him, the way it is taken. Furthermore, the statement is factually incorrect.
I think one major misconception here is that germany would be more centralised in the short term than in OTL. France for example was for hundreds of years a decentralised mess, making the hre look as a unified state in comparison. It was largely german tradition that let to a lot of internal fracturing and not squabbles with the pope per se. Although having the king able to exercise more power in germany instead of venturing into italy from time to time again definetly helps.
German elective tradition would be a huge obstacle to overcome for the german kings and will be a huge contributer for decentralisation for years to come, so bohemia joining germany is still very likely.
I would to a large Part agree the only state at which I could see centralisation would be in a conflict with France simmilar to the 100 Years war... sicne the Ruler must be strong enough to deal with Outside threads, but even then it is not a given as we see in the example of France.
Berlin remains a minor town in this reality it seems.
Makes sense as it was not that good of a place to build a massive city
Berlin would never have grown to prominence without Prussia
Good thing
@@Twisted_LogicBerlin was chosen as the early Prussian capital, because it was quite central located and had rivers for trade
This is a fascinating road-not-taken! I like the use of "Dutch" to refer to all Germans, but I gotta say I'm gonna miss those wacky Teutonic Knights...
It doesnt sound like it but dutch and teuton are cognates of the same origin word. They would still exist, but just be crusading somewhere else.
@@theChaosKe Makes sense! Of course, the Teutonic Knights being a crusading order, it would have been very on-brand for them to leave Prussia for somewhere else once they'd finished the job. I could imagine them showing up in Morocco or somewhere... "Hi, we're the Teutonic/Dutch Knights (we'll supply etymology upon request). We are here to fight you!"
Well Teutonic Knights would certainly still exist but not in Prussia, as i guess poland didn't go through fracturing meaning that a more unified Force could take care of the prussians instead of one Duke of Mazovia that brought them in to deal with the pagans and they decided to remain there
We Germans and Dutch are nearly identical. I like this alternate scenario.
Yeah I am a german here and dutch is just by far the closest germanic language to german. When you read nutrient value, then half of the dutch words just like german with more o‘s and all.
@@Backfyre08 True, many of the words of both languages are cognates meaning that in both languages you can expect very similar words for the same thing. One thing that confuses me oft is the fact that people are so adamant that the Dutch and Germans are practically a world apart in relation to one another. Another thing that I have noticed is that the cultures are very similar. The Dutch people being linked culturally, linguistically, and genetically with most North Sea Germans; Platt-Deutsch Volk (North Germans), Denamarkisch (Danish), Frisianisch (Frisians), Norðwegisch (Nordic), Ænglaisch (English), and to a more stretched extant; Swedeisch (Swedish), and Hoch-Deutsch Volk (Middle and Southern Germans).
@@Backfyre08In the east of the netherlands there's a dialect we call 'plat', which is almost mutually inteligible with the german 'Platt' or Niedersachsisch. Only a few things needed to have gone differently in history and the netherlands wouldn't have split off from the HRE, adding a bunch of dutch and flemish provinces to the german states
It would've been a behemoth, German kraftsmanschip and land armies & Dutch mercantilism and navy would've made for a three way rivalry between Britain, France and Dütchland for sure
Same
Rome turning into Greece would be very hard to justify imo.
The thing that prompted them to become Greece in our own timeline was the fact that the Romans fighting for independence from the ottomans were physically from Greece, whereas the Romans in Anatolia were more content. This drove the Romans fighting for freedom to distinguish themselves from the Romans content with ottoman rule by classifying themselves as Greeks.
With a continuous imperial government in Constantinople, and holding lands outside of Greece (mainly Moesia and Thrace) a Greek identity never emerges because it would be directly at odds with their highly prestigious Roman identity
Agree with this, I also don't think the Beyliks would completely centralize, I don't expect the Romans to completely retake Anatolia, but I disagree with them losing as much as they did.
I could see them coming to an understanding that their ethnicity was Greek, but that they still claimed to be the only true Roman continuation. Eventually they wouldn't be able to ignore that they were ethnic Greek/Anatolian Greek speakers, but they would still claim their civic identity as Roman.
Byzantine Empire was Roman in name only, the main language & culture was Greek, even so when it was still unified under Rome.
@@rey_nemaattoriTell that to actual historians. They were Roman.
I have alot of critism, don't take it the wrong way its just disagreements on the way you have history going and sometimes just the lack of explanation on certain changes. this video is well done and enjoyable.
5:30 the Lutician tribes should be part of the Kingdom of germany by this point. it was under german control since the 920s atleast (the march of Gero and Billung.) they only rebeled in the 980s, meaning they would be seen as german kingdom territoritories not HRE territories in this timeline. and so there is no reason the reincorperation wars wouldn't happen resulting in german rule again in 1035, just as german kingdom rather than HRE.
even the Obotrites should probably be conquered. since they were raiding german lands, even burning down hamburg, and were very anti-christian. there is both strong religious and secular reasons to conquer them.
5:40 you have egerland (what is now Chebsko) as part of bohemia even though it was part of bavaria in the 1100s and only became part of bohemia after the dutchy joined the HRE (which doesn't happen here), not even immediately after but only in 1322. so it would be part of Germany not bohemia (and bohemia would have a rounder tip) and never join bohemia unless conquered (unlikely since germany is united).
bohemia should look more like this: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Duchy_of_Bohemia_locator_map_(1029).svg
6:30 I don't agree. sweden expanded eastwards when it was christian for relgious reasons despite not being close to the pope. and it was happening enmasse even into already christian areas as the germans simply had a large surplus population and superior technology to the slavs. especially interms of landless noble sons. If anything the push eastwards would be stronger, as there is no energy spent on keeping the italian states within the HRE and thus more energy would be pushed against less controversial directions (non-Christians, and non-Catholics). there would still be german dominated crusader states, as the german population and family dynamics would still result in lots of german nobles seeking lands and titles and lots of non-nobles looking to settle outside of their places of birth.
7:22 I don't see why the byzantines are this positively affected by the change in germany/italy.
7:22 also I am sorry but why does germany lose land to poland and bohemia here? germany would be way too dominant ecconomically and militarily. this was a period of german ethnic and poltical expansion OTL and I don't see why making them more united and taking away the italy distraction would weaken them to the slavs. and you don't even explain why it happens in the video. when you make an alternate timeline you need to explain why you make divergences, especially when the previous divergences make it less likely without explanation. if anything the more unified germany should have more expansion than OTL, you need to explain why it shrinks instead.
8:22 why does Poland unite with Lithuania? historically that was because of the threat from the Teutons causing them to side with the catholic poles in marriage alliances eventually resulting in a PU. but in your timeline you erased the german element in the northern crusades (which i disagree with) replaced with poland. so purely based on your timeline they should hate poland and go with the other option they had at the time, the eastern slavs. ie there should be a 'Russia-Lithuania' in your timeline [specifically a Lithuania-Muscovy, which is also what most nobility wanted due to the closer ties with the rus peoples, which becomes a Russia-Lithuania] , not a Poland Lithuania.
similarly why does germany take over bohemia? its not super strong comparitively in this timeline, but its not a weak state either. I feel it deserves atleast a mention.
8:40 why. you don't say why.
based on 11:24 map and the fact many germans are stated to be outside the empire on this map, combined with the fact the german migration to bohemia was never stated to not happen. combined with centuries of dirrect german rule by a centralised german state that sees non-germans as oppressors as stated in the video, I don't understand why the 1800s (12:30) and more importantly modern (12:42) maps are smaller than the 11:24 maps. the modern map especially, as while empires trying to hold german lands make sense, they are unlikely to hold them after the advent of nationalism something established to be arisen in Germany itself. the modern german borders should be more than the 11:24 one by your timelines set up. especially as you set up a german USA equvilient (13:51) meaning germany should have an american juggernaut of its own to support it in the wars of the 20th century, reduceing the chances of a OTL post-ww2 style forced migration.
the 1800s map of eastern europe is just unrealistic. I don't see how Russia-Germany could fall apart so much in the timeline establish in such a short time here. that being a 1900s map makes way more sense. that kind of map can happen with the right set up but i don't see it happening so much so quickly in 1800s mindsets.
At 11:16 I briefly wondered what Tom Cruise movie was referenced.
Kudos for putting the Holy and the Roman back in the HRE!
While I do agree about the permanent border with the french, the way you displayed the polish as being similar to out timeline I think germany would still claim more lands from them.
Maybe maybe not as we don't have much look into politics of the states, and for all we know Polish could not suffer from the fracturing period for over 200 years and only unify fully back in like 1400s, meaning that Germans couldn't easily get that wanted land from a stronger opponent or some other reasons
@@KiraiKatsujiI feel like the border established by the end of the Middle Ages would at least be the Vistula.
@@legchairhistorian5496 What Germans never besides World Wars reached past vistula as a border and those were just temporary. Oder i can understand but Germans without any small states on the border wouldn't feel significant need to conquer much past elbe
didn't expect that to be mostly a better world
Mainly bc Ottomans never become big
@@Woah9394 not a fan of big greece honestly but yeah
@@HissPhunnyCatgreece>muslims
@@HissPhunnyCat Greece is overated it should be the Bulgarian Empire
@@Woah9394Italy would be significantly richer. The south doesn’t spend centuries under subjugation, the north never suffers from the Italian wars, Italy also unites in the 1700th century.
Germany would be significantly richer without the world wars.
France would have a significantly higher population with the napoleonic wars.
Spain would never fall to the Habsburgs. Iberia would probably be United.
So happy I have refound your channel, wouldn’t want to miss out in this
Holy Roman(German) Empire not existing? I can finally die peacefully!
Better than the Greek Byzantine empire by that point.
@@youthoughtaboutit6946 well I'm offended(even though I'm not Greek)
ok voltaire
Y
Do you have any problem against it ?
Finally, another great alt history video from our favourite Rome obsessed Dane!
This video gave me a quick deep damage in the gut with having Berengar's Lombards be the HRE
“Not holy not Roman not an empire”, but also it was endorsed by the pope, and also lasted for hundreds of years and was an important state in the center of Europe, BuT it WAsNt RoMAn
As with many of your videos there is a cool scenario presented but I think you never explain some fundamental assumptions and following outcomes. For example why would Poland be stronger because of a stronger Germany, I get why the Germans may never have pushed on Eastwards into the Baltic and colonized Prussia (although I think this would have happened anyway because the pope still would have wanted to Christianize the Baltic region and it is easier using the stronger German kingdom than Poland) but why wouldn't the German marches still be established and pushed Eastward all the same? The rise of the Turks in Anatolia is also unlikely if you start with the assumption of a stronger Byzantium. France being more successful against a unified Germany is very unlikely, especially if you are going to include Burgundy as a sovereign entity establishing itself. Protestantism would still rise as it has less to do with the HRE and more to do with North Western Germanic culture in combination with the heavy handed response from the Catholics resulting in the schism. I have no problem with the colonial stuff as it is impossible to neither falsify or verify.
To conclude I think it would have been rather similar to the alternative scenario of the Kaiserreich, or Austria in our timeline but even larger and similarly multi-ethnic however stronger and more stable.
Also I think you missed some things that could have been interesting:
- Asian, Australian and North American colonies as the Germans kind of merged with the Dutch (I think a German Australia is more likely than a South American Colony due the Dutch explorers in Oceania and colonial activity in Indonesia).
- The Reformation or some similar schism.
- Alternative world wars, maybe France and Poland got beaten so bad by Germany and Russia in the alternative timeline so that they turned Nazi instead.
You do know that the HRE was indeed Holy, Roman, and an Empire for most of its history right?
It Was Not, it didn't have Papal Land for a majority of it's history it didn't have Rome for majority of it's history and it didnt have big unified states for majority of it's history so it was neither of those three
@@KiraiKatsuji You do not need to hold papal lands to be considered to be Holy as the coordination of the emperor gave him the popes blessing as well as the churches blessing which makes it holy. So? Neither did the eastern roman empire yet they're still roman. I suggest you look up the two swords theology and the historically view of what rome actually was within the medieval world. You do not need to be a big, unified state to be a empire. France was a collection of small counties and larger duchies for hundreds of years, yet no one questions if it is actually a kingdom. You misunderstand feudal states if you think a centralized reign is the mark of a empire.
@@Easternromanfan EH
Only it was all of these things. Voltaire was quite wrong, historians agree on that. His confusion was dismay, he never stated it directly and what he perceived was the last 50 years of this 1.000-year empire.
As a German I like this timeline
With a German South American colony would mean it is less likely millions of Germans immigrated to North America which has a major impact on American culture.
this should be an eu4 mod
babe wake up new neatling video released
Where did you get the flag from?
Underrated channel
8:50 I also think it is strange how you assume germany would be less fragmented without the Emperor's power being drained by the struggles in Italy, but you don't think Italy would end up more centralized after making the fact that a capable Roman (Italian) Emperor prevents Otto The Great's conquest of Northern Italy the crux of your alternate timeline.
Great video could you also do a part 2 for its position in the modern day like with what you did with the Eastern Roman Empire.
why is the western part of jutland bigger back in Charlemagnes times? was that actually real or a bug in the map?
it is historically accurate.
Saint Marcellus's flood changed the coastline of western jutland
A Big Flood
A part two focusing on my other question would be nice.
I'm so sick of the HLE slander. It had rome, and it was quite definitely holy given how the Emperor had to be crowned by the pope. It was a dominant european power for a long time
7:56 I don't think there would be a strong Burgundian faction in France in this scenario. Without the fiefs of the low countries falling to them, the Dukes of Burgundy would be far less influential.
the lack of a protestant reformation would radically change the early development of the US- i honestly don't think we can just assume it'll be similar to how it is in OTL.
Finally a good Neatling video
In a way, Germany did "form early," with a Kingdom of Germany existing within the HRE.
Loved this scenario. I would have liked to see if Greece was still big in 2024 though. Always love to see Greek and German respect.
The German South America was a surprise but it's a nice one. I would have liked to learn how they got that big considering the 2 other powers that were there at the time
my big issue is that you just copy-paste the problems of the HRE onto the Italian Roman Empire you replaced otl's HRE with:
An Italian HRE probably wouldn't have the issues of disunity or an elective leader, the Italian Roman Empire, imo, would consolidate in the same way other European states such as France and the hypothetical kingdom of Germany here.
The title of Emperor probably would end up becoming a hereditary or de-facto hereditary title as Emperors curb the Pope's authority till he is in a similar state to the Patriarch of Constantinople was at the same time.
Thus the Great Schism would probably be very much difference, especially as fillioque as Roman Catholics see it nowadays was a frankish innovation. My opinion, we might see high ranking clerics in the the Western kingdoms (Germany, france, etc.) declaring independence from the "Roman Churches", supported by their kings who want more independence from the IRE controlled Papacy.
Alternatively, perhaps at some point (lets say a century or two after our Great Schism) a pope dies and an especially anti-fillioqueist Pope is appointed, German bishops (or cardinals, still not sure if there still would be cardinals as cardinals were established around the point of departure from otl) appoint one of their own as a competing Pope, excommunications go both ways, now it's Frankish Catholicism.
Further, I imagine the Crusades would end up being a bit more successful and wide reaching, particularly seeing European armies form a coalition to attack other parts of the Islamic world, Northern Africa and Iberia for instance, the reconquista may even end a bit sooner. Historians might Identify the Crusades as a time period rather than a part of the medieval period.
Not gonna say the Crusaders keep Jerusalem for any significant period of time, at most it gets traded back and forth and develops an unique identity, based on a settlement to coexist between Muslims, various kinds of Christians, and Jews, from the waves of different peoples who pass through.
But I imagine you'd probably see a weaker islamic world skewed more south and east than otl with the Eastern Romans probably managing to keep a lot more of western and Northern Anatolia with a series of Christianized Turkish vassals on their eastern border.
So there might be a Latinized Tunis as part of the IRE, a potentially Coptic Kingdom of Egypt, maybe East Roman Antioch or Syria, Hispanic Kingdoms taking over Morrocco, (for the sake of pretty borders I think a fully United Hispania would form from inheritances and conquests, not implausible since there won't be any Hapsburgs with international prominence in this timeline)
The Renaissance, with a longer lasting and Stronger Eastern Roman Empire, would happen very much differently given that Greek intellectuals would not have to flee to the west to kickstart the Italian Renaissance. My opinion is we see a Greek Renaissance that would spread to Italy via Trade and from Italy to the rest of Europe, whether by trade or by Italian and Greek Universities educating western intellectuals and clerics.
I will agree that most of "Protestantism" would probably happen, probably more along the lines of the English Reformation where the Government of a Kingdom splits from the greater church and then implements changes onto the Church from above.
For the sake of a pretty timeline, lets say Churches in the west split from the pentarchy over the Fillioque and other issues, then the national churches become semi-protestant from monarchs with more protestant minded peoples in their councils.
Thus the counter reformation instead becomes a devolution of Papal authority granting Autocephaly to Hispania, maybe France, and the British Isles while Scandinavia and Germany remain protestant.
I think Poland would keep Bohemia and form a personal union with Hungary but I've outlined this scenario enough
Love the Greek kingdom that still has a toehold in anatolia--reverse Turkey.
This video was interesting until 7mins. After this point the author just takes historic stuff that happened in real life and invents some bs to justify how that would still happen in the invented timeline (rise of venice, , ottomans, burgundy, aragon taking islands, and SOMEHOW german napoleon??, etc), thereby making it both unrealistic and boring.
None of these events would likely happen because of the new power dynamic you established in the first 7mins.
Whats the point of making alt history and creating a cool concept like an italian hre if italy is SOMEHOW fked by venice and aragon cause of streamlined plot?
Honestly this is most likely a scrip form chat gpt so dont bother watching after 7mins
12:23 could've let Germany keep eastern Territories but oh well
Good video! Only thing that really stands out to me is Poland. While my EU4 player self would love to see a strong Poland, I’d doubt they would remain strong with a united Germany as their neighbor. Germany and Russia would definitely come together to take land from them, maybe even the Danes too. They may put up a better fight with them having the resources of Bohemia, but unfortunately geography works against them.
Interesting scenario, but without the world wars, I don't think the US or Dutch America would be the largest economies, I think Germany would be the largest.
Great job 👍👍👍👍, though I'm a little sad with the weak ERE 😭😭
True It should be Called GBE (Great Bulgarian Empire) and have entire balkans
@@KiraiKatsuji Neatling is always giving us a Big Turkey 🤣🤣😭😭
I would assume that the eastern border would be probably the Oder River as a major river.
Funny how Ottomans were much weaker in this timelune
If the Holy Roman Empire was only Italy. The question would be, does the eastern Roman Empire ask the Holy Roman Empire ask the Germans or the holy Romans for help. The reason I would be asking is if the eastern Romans ask the holy Romans for help the Teutonic knights don’t settle Prussia, making the Prussians someone else, making Germany something else.
As a German I honestly like this scenario, although I am saddened by Prussia/Königsberg never existing in this world, what we have gained in the west, most notably controlling all of German speaking Switzerland, Elsass Lothringen, and the lowlands, makes up for what we didn’t have in the east in this timeline
Das war ein sehr unrealistischer Teil des Szenarios. Ein stärkeres Polen konnte in der echten Welt nicht gegen schwächere Nachbarn bestehen, also wie sollte in diesem Szenario ein schwächeres Polen gegen stärkere Nachbarn bestehen?
@@FranconiaForever ja stimmt… Und weil Deutschland stärker wäre, würde der Deutsche Orden trotzdem Preußen gründen… vielleicht sogar früher?
@@Kaiser7068 Gut möglich, da der Papst immernoch jemanden haben will, der den baltischen Raum konvertiert.
Im sorry but I strongly disagree on the Anatolia take. In no way realistically would any of the reasons you brought up supplement the survival of the Eastern Roman Empire and the Sultanate of Rum.
Sadly that is a given with alternate history channels
No 4th crusade = No byzantine collapse
And no 4th crusade collapsing byzantium doesn’t leave the opportunity to ottoman rise to prominence in anatolia and the balkans. Rum is too big, but these events are very logical. The fall of constantinople (the first time) is what led to every development after in anatolia.
No Sack of constantinopole meaning a stronger Bizantium means harder time conquering it, also like Different timeline means different figures that could be better or worse for both sides
@@KiraiKatsuji yes but for all of the reasons you and @davidozemberg9295 brought up are big ifs, and the Byzantine empire was inevitably going to collapse due to eastern pressures, a little extra strength from the 4th crusade, wouldn't "In my opinion" make a large enough difference to prevent the collapse of Byzantium.
Could u do a video of a alternative history of India if it never got colonised
11:11 no HRE, no Kaiser. He would be called König (King in English)
I really want to make maps and i watched your video on how you make your maps but im having trouble finding a base map so i would appreciate it if you could post a link to your base map? If you can and you see this thanks, if not then its fine
Came to this video with high expectations, and I got deception. This video was a big bυllshιτ .
The city translation in the end but w
Beautiful.
Southern Italy was the richest part of Italy until Industrialization which was led by the north to the detriment of the south.
Finally,there aren't 1000 states no more.I can finnaly look at Germany.
Very interesting 👏 👏
I don't think the eastern Roman Empire would reform into Greece mainly because there is no evidence of ir, even during the ottoman era, for several more centuries people there still called themselves romans
Also there would be many more French in those German lands, mainly in southern Belgium, in total in those borders of yours there may be 6-7 million French speakers, so more like 3-4 percent of the population
How do you justify Romania taking all those lands? Hungary was a strong centralised state, seen as capable of become as great as England of France in the 14th- 15th, it had big gold mines and fertile lands.
The amount of Romanians in transilvania would be much less since they never moved there during Ottoman war and they are never invited by the Austrians to resettle. Wallachia was a weak and poor state, I don't see how they would achieve this.
Hey man can you make a video about this. What if the kievan rus survive? Sorry for my weack english.
Hmm Well it would require the Mongols to be worse at conquering europe which would change a bit, but probably it would end in a state occupying similar niche to russia
If I hear this voltaire quote again...I swear.
okay big fan of the sentiment but the video has way too big a scope to function as a proper alternate history video. A lot of assumptions had to be made that basically turn this into complete fiction by the early modern era.
Yeah that what comes around with making an alternate history, as no matter when you start after 50 years it becomes total fiction as nothing could be fully predicted
@@KiraiKatsujiI mean sure but squeezing one thousand years of history into a fifteen minute video doesn't help either
please do
"what if the middle east had no oil"
How do you move the camera around like that?
Italy would have a personal union with Castile/Spain
This is a much more realistic scenario than we had in our timeline. In the long run, Europe is much more stable.
bro really called actual history unrealistic lol
Very good, super interesting enough for me to think so so much and convince myself as if this is true… so
It's a very good video but I have two complaints:
1-Bulgaria didn't submit to the Ottomans and lose it's identity so there's no reason why it should to the Greeks and,
2-If Russia doesn't have a communist revolution(it seems significant enough to mention) or maintains Tsarist rule then I don't see why it couldn't greatly overtake Germany to have 250-350 million people overall.
1.Bulgarian Land was under Bizantium for a long time and could just fuse together but be under name of Greece due to it having greater historical prestige.
2.Well we skipped over 100 years so it could happen but we don't know, and also we don't know about's it borders, for all we know it could have lost entire south in europe over that time and be left with half of their territory be not ideal for most things
@@KiraiKatsuji Bulgaria had developed a strong national identity by then and the adversity between the Hellenic Greeks and Slavic Bulgarians in terms of language culture and history. As for your second point, that does seem reasonable.
Yeah the difference is the Bulgarians were Orthodox, like the Greeks, and at the time national identity had more to do with religion than language or ethnicity. The Bulgarians, like the Greeks, remained separate during Ottoman rule because the Empire was Muslim and oppressed them. In this timeline Byzantium doesn't oppress the Bulgarians, it simply assimilates them like other Orthodox linguistic minorities
@@georgios_5342 It doesn't matter if they were both Orthodox or not, the Bulgarians by then had the mindset that the Byzantines were their arch geopolitical nemesis and similarity in religious sect wouldn't ease that. They spoke two very different languages, had a history and mindset of competition and adversarial attitudes so the Bulgarians would not take too kindly to assimilation. By your standards, Ukraine should have long been assimilated by now but they retain a distinct identity from Russia, despite both being Orthodox, sharing the same alphabet and a nearly identical language with a history of unity and shared struggle, the Ukrainians having a flat land without mountains to make assimilation hard, along with vast intermarriage between the two. The Bulgarians are much less primed for assimilation so they should very much retain a distinct identity.
They had this mindset because they existed as a state, here there never really was a Bulgarian state, just migration of populations.
Do the second part Western Roman empire surviving ASAP 😭🙏
Video idea: What if disease never killed the native Americans
13:00
Good video, but german and dutch were already diverging languages by 1000
In fact, up until around the 17th century, the vast majority of northern germans already spoke a somewhat standardized low german (platt) variant form lübeck.
If the german kingdom had remained united, the dutch as low lying trade fairing people would still have been seperate from the rest of germany. Even when people in an area in germany what we call the "niederrhein" spoke dutch until the 20th century, they were still not seen as "dutch" by the dutch. This is because being dutch was not just about language, but moreso about a trading culture. The low countries would have not existed of course, but a seperate regional and eventual national identity wouldve still emerged.
Another identity that wouldve been present wouldve been the hanseates or saxons. Like i said, around the year 1000 there were basically 4 west german languages (excl english: German, Saxon (would become platt), Frankish (would become dutch) and Frisian. Frisian was bound to be absorbed due to geography, but saxon couldve lived on. It also had a seperate identity and it was only because of the fact that the teutonic order existed (and protestantism and nationalism coming too late) that its not a seperate state. Saxon identity, similiar to dutch identity, was defined by trading merchants from cities (Bremen, Hamburg, Lübeck, Rostock) but with more focus on the eastern north sea and baltic sea, whereas the dutch focused on trade with anyone they could find.
If germany had remained a kingdom, i find it unlikely that these forces would not pull the country in 3. Whereas the south and center (german speaking, 1/2 of the population) would be more interested in continental affairs, and agriculture and self governenance and democracy (see reason why switzerland exists, see german peasents war) the north would be more interested in trade, colonization, world affairs and education. That is not to say that the south and center would be poor, but its just massively diverging interests.
The Dutch just be conquered by the Germans and french kings don't care if you speak his language or not
Dutch is actually just around 1/3 of the frankish language, the low franconian part. The low refers to not being affected by the high german consonant shift, the rest of the franconian sphere became part of high german (middle and upper franconian).
So i do think its a bit more tricky to predict feelings of identity.
I think you're overestimating the sense of Dutch identity back then
@@kimashitawa8113 Not really.
Dutch identity didnt exist. The same way german identity didnt exist. National Identity didnt really exist until the french revolution. Before then, the vast vast majority of people simply lived their day to day lives without worrying about things like that.
The thing that did happen was polities being influenced by common interests. Like I said, the dutch had interest in trading, while the more continental germans were more interested in continental affairs. That is a simle fact of reality and cannot be changed.
The evidence for this is pretty clearly the meuse-rheinish dialects which are part of teh dutch language and have been since old high german consonant shift that occured in the 7th century. The meuse-rheinish dialects (if you look up maps) are/were spoken in germany, but the netherlands never had any aspirations for them joining the netherlands. Why? Because dutch identity was not just about language, but about economic and political interest. Those being trade.
People in duisburg could speak with people in rotterdam. The dutch knew this, but didnt consider those people important/dutch. Why? Because of diverging interest. Poeple in that region simply had way more to do with someone from leipzig or frankfurt than someone from antwerp or amsterdam.
Additionally, if you look up "niederfränkisch" on german wikipedia, you can see a couple of maps that clearly outline that by 580AD there was already a split between west germanic languages.
This is a simle fact of geogprahy. People in close proximity to each other with similiar dialects will eventually form a linguistic bottleneck whereby their dialects converge but they diverge from the larger dialect continuum.
The same thing happen in the hanseatic league at its hayday. Low German was THE language of the baltic sea and trade. It served as the lingua franca of northern europe. But with its decline beginning in the 15th century, it became replaced by high german in the printing press in the 15th and 16th century. Had the hanseatic league remained important until the age of enlightenmend, its likely that lwo german would have remained a literary language and also a language of the people there. The difference between what happened to the dutch (low franconians) and what happened to the saxons (platt german) is the simple fact that dutch economic interest (trade around the world) remained important with the discovery of the americas and new trade routes, while hanseatic/saxon economic interest dwindled in importance from that point on.
The dutch always were going to have different interests from the german. Im german myself, but that is a simple reality. The dutch are called the dutch adn the germans are called the germans because the french and english had way more to do with dutch people than with germans. Depsite someone from vienna and amsterdam having the same word for themselves (dietsch, teutsch, duits, etc.) it was the modern day dutch that suceeding in that being the name for their people. High germans were called almains and low germans hanseates in english.
This shows that despite supposed linguistic and ethnic ties being more important than economic ties, it does not result in those linguistic/ethnic ties being more important than trade/economics. An english person did not care that dutch people might have spoken the same language as someone from duisburg, germany. For it mattered to them who they did their trade with. I am not saying that english people created dutch identiy. I am saying that this fact shows that dutch and germa identity were already diverging.
@@theChaosKe With frankish i was referring to old franconian which was essentially low franconian. The consonant shift (that made köln and trier not be a part of low franconian / dutch) already occured in the 7th century furthering my point that geography already predicted national identity.
It is of course not guaranteed that geography determines if a one part of a country (low countries) stay with another part of a country (germany) as can be seen by the fact that low germans are in germany today depsite low german being a historically very important literaray and trade langauge.
BUt my point is that dutch economic interests persisted into the age of englightenment. Hanseatic trade declined around the time of the printing press, i.e. when high german became standardized, the former hanseatic cities adopted high german and didnt adopt a standardized low germanv variant simply because the hanseatic league had declined by that point due to long distance shipping making regional trade (hanseatic baltic trade) become unimportant.
That historical fact was always going to happen. Local trade was never going to keep up with world trade (think of dutch spice trade to formosa or indonesia). And world trade could only hapen in the age of englightenment which coincides with age of nationalism.
That is to say: dutch identity through language and shared economic interest would by definition carry over into the age of nationalism making them way more likely to want indepdence later on.
Meanwhile low germans had nearly completely adapted the high german language once nationalism arose and are therefore an undisputed part of germany.
You can predict a lot of things with geography
Germany without Berlin :(
Good video!
Germany without Berlin :)
Awesome video! But say I was wondering if you could make like an alternate history where the Islamic caliphate never fell ? I think that would be a really good video.
Lore of What if Germany Formed Early? - No Holy Roman Empire | Alternate History momentum 100
United Italy, could it crush again everybody else?
Lol German Brazil? They dont stand a match to Portugal, France and Holland try to...
They have all of the lowlands and Calais in this timeline, they'd be a major naval power.
Think of a humongous Netherlands Navy💀
14:04 heh Himmelfart
11:44 Yugoslavia in 1800s....Im satisfied as a Serbian
Not your best.
It'll explode in a decade
By any chance did this Karl Otto flunk out of art school? 😬
Gertaly
The holy Roman confederation
Das ist gud
I love you AND bread 🍞🍞🍞
Blessed Timeline
I like your maps and country statistics. Very entertaining. That's why I don't watch Possible History. His stuff is realistic but it's freaking boring.
Holy Roman Empire is Germany
How about Indonesia? Surely this german empire would colonized them
Very likely, I didn't show the entire colonial empire. Everything the Dutch successfully colonized, Germany would likely have colonized even more successfully. So South Africa remains German/Dutch, for example, with the British never capturing it.
So, no Hitler?
Bit odd you think the ottonians would last 800 years
Those are not ottomans, they are turks but not ottomans
😮@@KiraiKatsuji
@@KiraiKatsuji I said ottonians, not ottomans. The ottonian dynasty of germany and the hre in our timeline
Wadnt expecting united states of south america
Poland is way too powerful in this scenario
Its so hillaious with the copium that Skåne, Blekinge and Halland is Swedish, and in every video bro makes Denmark gets Scania back somehow even if the scenario is what if the spannish american war never happened lol
30 MINUTES EARLY
cool
Não a America do sul virou um enorme Rio grande do sul
No HRE No Liechtenstein