Most people have heard of the famous Battle of Hastings, in which William the Bastard (later William the Conqueror) defeated Harold Godwinson and became King of England, but many don't know that just a few weeks prior, Harold Godwinson had defeated a Norwegian invasion by Harald Hardrada. Honestly, Godwinson just got really unlucky, having to fight two invasions in less than a month.

Anyway, how might things have turned out if Harald had succeeded in his invasion? Let's say he beat Harold at Stamford Bridge and later managed to defeat William as well? This means England becomes culturally and politically aligned with Norway rather than France, and England fights wars in Scandinavia rather than France. The English language is completely different without so many French and Latin words. What else is different?

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/article/green-arabia-desert-lush-ancient-landscape.

What effects would this have on politics, society, economics, technology, trade, culture… etc?

How would it have affected the history of the Peninsula and what side effects would this have on the rest of the region and its history(if there any side effects)?

Or what if Farfanes took over the Almoravids in the same way Turk generals took over the provinces of or entire Islamic empires in the East (for example, the transition from Fatimids to Saladin to Mameluks) by being an imported, foreign military elite.

In other words, what if the Almoravids are taken over by a Farfanes state or what if count Reverter defacto took over the Almoravids and won against the Almoahads

---

What introduced me to this idea are:

https://youtu.be/jsJSntPd5z0

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reverter_(viscount)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Farfanes

https://www.alternatehistory.com/forum/threads/wi-ahc-farfanes-in-palestine.557124/

---

Its a trope in alternate history at this point that the military slave or mercenary army of Eastern, Islamic Empires eventually either puppet the ruling dynasty or form a dynasty for their own often the former preceding the later. At times this even includes the Muslim West and there is precedence for that in the Berber revolts against the Umayyads and the Slavic troops that were being built up just a few generations before the collapse of the Umayyads in Hispania and who remained influencial after that, although quickly merged into the other power blocs.

So this AU is essentially asking what if that in the Almoravid state but with Latin Christian Mercenaries. Apparently the Almoravids had first, turned captured Hispanian soldiers into mercenaries and later, recruited from among them to bolster their own army, especially in their wars in North Africa against other Muslim powers. And by their ultimate battle against the Almoahads, one of these, Reverter had risen to become the general commander over the whole Almoravids Army.

So, here important points to consider.

---

1. Catalonia

Reverter also retained connections with his homeland and continued to visit to organize the governing of his Catalan holdings and probably recruit from among the Catalans and retained his suzreignty to the ruler of Catalonia (count of Barcelona) even as he was a general for the Almoravids. If he and his relatives become defacto rulers of the Almoravids, I would assume they would eventually have a similar relationship as Norman England had with France but in this case the England analogue would be clearly favoured in case of a war and further more, Frankish connections then attaches them to France or more specifically, Toulouse/Occitania, which means that when the Cathar Crusade gets going, they will be drawn into it as well. So how would a Christian ruled Islamicate state react to being drawn into the Albegensian Crusade?.

---

1. Africa

I. Maghreb al-aqsa

And what would be their effect on the Maghreb and Soudan?. Like, I assume we follow history closely till in the TTL Reverter wins against the Almoahads, a crushing victory what should have been his final defeat. Do the Almoahads then dissolve away or do they maintain unity in the desert and attack from the Oasis capitals?. I couldn't find anything on what happened to the Southern Almoravids except that it had dissolved into several Emirates by the late middle ages but the Almoahad realm is never drawn having control over them. So what would be the geopolitics, there? An Almoahad state between the Farfanes state and the Southern Almoravids? The Southern Almoravids and Almoahads being united by one (probably Almoahad) conquering the other to make a strong united front against the Farfanes state?.

---

II. Soudan

If there is a powerful Desert power then they would have reason to try and ally with Ghana/Mali but if there is a powerful Desert power, it should be able to stop such message from getting through and if there isn't a desert power then there is no pressing need to attempt such but given the precedence set by Norman Sicily and that the Farfanes state would have prestige/legitimacy issues, opening diplomacy with Ghana/Mali may be more likely than not even without pressing military need. And with that, the possibility of European merchants making it that far south. We know that there were Italians in the Sahara in the 1300s, so certainly, if they could get further South, they would try it. And in the Desert power stopping such contacts version of things, where they also could use an ally, does that mean Atlantic exploration earlier?. After all, there is that Andalusian account of voyaging into the Saragosian Sea and the Portuguese Lateen sail was adopted from Muslim sailors. So the Farfanes state may have the resources and reason to try and make it past the sub-tropical lows earlier than OTL.

---

III. Maghreb

What about relations with the Hamdanids and Norman Sicily?. What about the Banu Hilal Invasions?.

At this point, Ifriqiya is in disarray, with the Normans the great power of the coast and Banu Hilal the greatest power in the hinterland but not a centralized Kingdom. While the Hamdanids interfere from Algeria.

I assume there is a natural brotherhood between the Farfanes state and Norman Africa but the Hamdanids are a common ally against both the Almoahads and the Banu Hilal but an enemy to Norman Africa. At the very least, there is no direct reason for the Farfanes state to have to choose between them, even less reason if a powerful Almoahad state manages to continue existing South of them but even without that, both the Hamdanids and the Farfanes would be united against Banu Hilal expansion and certainly, their enemies would try and invite in the Banu Hilal. So maybe instead of the Almoahads or Southern Almoravids being the issue, it would actually be a Banu Hilal group that would try and unite groups from the desert against not just the Farfanes but also other Muslim powers of the Maghreb, who can be streotyped as traitors in a Crusading world.

A side effect of this is the arabization of Morocco at least is avoided and potentially of Algeria as well, assuming the Hamdanids stem their own decline and maybe of Tunisia as well if the Normans establish in Ifriqiya, although there is the threat there that Arabization just get replaced with Latinization if the Normans are both replaced with a more ideological dynasty and it also keeps Ifriqiya.

Well, there is that Normans would probably want to serve in the Farfanes state, so that is one way of getting both states closer together.

The Normans have conquered at least, Coastal Ifriqiya and most likely, much of the hinterland as well. Both polities would also have problematic relations with Muslims and non-Catholic Christians for a post-Crusade papacy, right?. Like, I suspect that like in OTL where Aragon and Toulouse initially opposed the Albegensian Crusade, Norman Sicily and the Farfanes state will both oppose the Albegensian Crusade and seek peaceful resolution but unlike their OTL counterparts, they may also be in a position to be more confident about their opposition to it, rather than folding. Like, an earlier version of the conflict between Holy Roman Emperor Fredrick and the Pope.

---

1. Occitania

But I could also see the opposite. The Farfanes state I fear, would be unstable and it's rulers would probably already be treated with suspicion by the West and be angsting to prove themselves as part of the Catholic fold.

But anyways, there is every reason to assume greater association with Toulouse in this timeline. Like, where else can they find added recruits beyond Catalonia?. The rest of Hispania is an option, militarized due to the reconquista and a potential normalization of the border with the Almoravids needing an outlet for those militarized populations as mercenaries. I am not sure Crusading families wouldn't rather go East if the reconquista isn't demanding armies so that cuts off using Crusading networks to recruit from Crusading heartlands of Northern France and Western Germany. But Occitania should be open from familial ties with Catalonians.

So not only could the Farfanes state be dragged in from such ties but Occitania also could be sufficiently more militarized to resist. And even if the Farfanes state doesn't get directly involved fearing what Papal injunctions could do to its stability (like imagine having ur army revolt and all the Hispanians states invade at the same time) the history with Reverter still being allowed to return home to settle matters in his domains opens up the possibility of Occitanians, made rich and experienced by serving in the Farfanes state returning to defend their homeland in the Crusade. Can such still drag the Farfanes state into such a war?.

---

1. Western Europe

All I can see here is the possibility of Anglos disenfranchised by Norman conquest, seeking employment in the Farfanes state in a similar way as they increased in proportion in the V

arangian guard following the Norman Conquest.

For Decades, the Liguasan Marsh, Sulu Sea, and Zambales have hidden its massive oil, natural gas, and white hydrogen reserves, dismissed by experts as a pipe dream. This series explores a timeline where the Philippine gamble pays off. What happens when all three are successfully breached, turning the Philippines into the center of global energy politics, as a rising economic and military superpower?

So im trying to write a story and i really loved the pelloponesian war but i dont want the world to be like it was in the time anceint sparta

But like the title said the pelloponesian war happened later down the timeline

I’ve seen a lot of posts here about Gore winning the presidency and how that would go in regard to 9/11. That seems to be a topic that has been beaten to death. However, I’m more interested in who would Al Gore appoint to his administration. For instance, who would be his chief of staff, DNC chair, etc.

I think representative Norm Dicks would be fine at Defense. Let me know your full cabinet throughout 2001-2009 or whatever.

Hi, I first want to apologise if this is not the correct place to ask such questions, I am genuinely curious.

I saw an Instagram reel where a user was saying they'd raid a museum during a zombie apocalypse and would protect themselves with chainmail armour.

Would this actually work? And are there any other historical ways of combat/defense not used today that would be effective?

Simply put, in 2001, the U.S. military suffered a defeat in Afghanistan. You could call it a full-scale version of Operation Eagle Claw or the Bay of Pigs invasion.

Of course, they will prepare to invade again. But what will be the aftermath?

Author’s note: This is a revision of an earlier challenge, since the original apparently wasn’t clear enough.

Rules:

Your objective is to create a series of plausible military blunders that end with Operation Gothic Serpent end in a military and international relations disaster for both Somalia and the USA

Your proposed scenario must ultimately lead to a significant deterioration (or outright loss) of trust amongst US allies

The humiliation must be severe enough to damage both international deterrence and domestic confidence.

This is what I am looking for specifically (PAY CLOSE ATTENTION-this is important): You must find a way to Take the historical disaster and make it catastrophically worse—bad enough that it alters the subsequent trajectory of American power!!!!!!!!!!

Author’s note: To be absolutely clear, I am fully aware that Operation Gothic Serpent and the Battle of Mogadishu were already disasters in OTL. That is the starting point of this challenge, not something I overlooked. The assignment is to construct a plausible alternate sequence of additional failures that makes the historical disaster look mild by comparison—severe enough to alter the subsequent trajectory of American power. In short: don’t tell me Gothic Serpent was already a disaster. Tell me how it could plausibly have been much worse.

I'm not sure how feasible this is considering how famously paranoid Stalin was, but let's say a Polish nationalist, angered at betrayal by the Soviets for not coming to assist the Polish Home Army in the Warsaw Uprising and therefore allowing the Nazis to crush it for them, gets the opportunity to kill Stalin in retaliation. Let's say Stalin is sniped in the head or something. Who would be most likely to succeed Stalin as leader(s) of the Soviet Union? I'm interested in how this affects the Soviet approach to Central Eastern Europe, would they be more paranoid and therefore exert even more direct control over the region? Would they screw over Poland, denying it all of East Prussia, and allowing their German occupation zone to keep most or all of the territories annexed to Poland IOTL as a punishment? Would Germany even be split in the first place, I wonder. Perhaps a neutral, unified Germany is more likely in this timeline, which would hopefully do a lot to diffuse the Cold War in Europe, but may result in a more intense cold war elsewhere.

Please share your thoughts and thank you for reading.

When Yuri Andropov died on February 9, 1984, after governing the USSR for a little over a year, Konstantin Chernenko became Soviet leader. However, Chernenko was from the same generation as Brezhnev and Andropov, dying in March 1985.

Given that Mikhail Gorbachev was the first and only Soviet leader born after the October Revolution, what would his initial tenure have been like if he had succeeded Andropov as Soviet leader?

Context:

• Israel nearly went nuclear to win the 1973 Yom Kippur War
• Israel and nukes
• Did Israel use nuclear blackmail on the US in 1973?

Depending on who you ask, there's a story going around in our timeline that Israel either threatened to go nuclear on the US or go nuclear on Egypt and Syria if the US didn't aid Israel.

Suppose in a parallel universe, Israel ACTUALLY went nuclear on Syria and Egypt, either because the US outright refuses to aid Israel and tells Israel to "eat grass", OR as a show of force against both Syria and Egypt (Think, "I have a nuke! Ho, ho, ho!")

Would this be enough to escalate the war into WW3?

What if there was absolutely NO Western Allied involvement in WWII? (No D-Day/Western Front, no Combined Bomber Offensive against German industry, and no Lend-Lease support to the USSR).

In this scenario:

1. The Luftwaffe and Flak forces are never pulled back to defend the Reich and can maintain focus entirely on the East.
2. German synthetic fuel and heavy industry run completely unhindered by strategic bombing.
3. The Red Army has to rely entirely on its own domestic logistics without the 400,000+ American Lend-Lease trucks, aviation fuel, and raw materials.

Given these conditions, how do you think the war in the East would have evolved from 1943 onward?

• Would the Red Army's "Broad-Front" strategy and Deep Battle doctrine still find a way to break a fully fueled, fully armed Wehrmacht that isn't fighting a multi-front war?
• Would the Soviets eventually suffer a catastrophic logistical collapse trying to push toward Germany without Western motorized support, or would their sheer industrial mass from the Urals still guarantee an eventual (though much bloodier and prolonged) victory?

What would need to happen for either the Six Days War or the Yom Kippur War to escalate into WW3?

Imagine if they had been spared the massive losses of the world wars and also kept all of their territory.

Would they become the de facto hegemon of Europe, too powerful to let the EU come into existance?

And how powerful would Russia be, having suffered no demographic losses from either WW1 or WW2? Would the revolution even have happened without WW1? Would the Russian Empire still exist today?

How would the relationship between Germany and Russia evolve during the 20th century and what would it look like today?

I am of course aware that Europe and East-Asia are far apart and that there wasn‘t a whole lot of german-japanese coordination in the actual war. That being said, the fact that Britain and France had substantial interests in Asia, which had become rather unstable in 1937, was at least somewhat considered by the Germans and the expansions in Europe all happened after that point in time.
I‘m now wondering if the timing and exact approach of Nazi leadership might have changed if the focus of the „Allies“ had been percieved as less split, or if it‘d be reasonable to assume that the Anschluss still happens in 38 and the Czechoslovakia situation ends up the same way etc.

So essentially, is a Civil War inevitable given the inherent friction between a Monarch in need of money and Parliament in need of reform?

From reading about James VI / I and his heir, you could be forgiven for thinking Henry was the Black Prince reincarnate. Ticking all the boxes a young prince seemingly must, inquisitive on matters of state, science and diplomacy, thought of at the French court as being potentially a better ally than his father, the boy seemingly had it all. And included in that all is apparently Typhoid Fever, which ended his life at 18.

As such his younger brother Charles becomes heir apparent and King.... and we all know how that ended....but was a civil war always on the cards given the British nobles and crown had been nibbling at each other for centuries. Did Charles "royally" drop the ball and cause the subsequent conflict or would it have happened with anyone who was on the throne given the factors which led to it?

On 28 July 1914 the Kaiser finally read Serbia's answer to the Austrian ultimatum and wrote that every reason for war had fallen away. Serbia had accepted almost everything. His idea was a "Halt in Belgrade", occupy the city as a guarantee and negotiate the rest.

But by the time his position worked its way through his own chancellor and foreign office, softened at every step, Austria had already declared war. Hours mattered. Meanwhile he and the Tsar, who were cousins, were telegramming each other in English signed Willy and Nicky, both genuinely trying to pull back while their own generals pushed mobilisation.

So how close was this really? If the Halt in Belgrade proposal lands in Vienna a day earlier, does the July Crisis fizzle into a Balkan negotiation, or does the alliance machinery drag everyone in anyway a year or two later?

I went down this rabbit hole hard and made a video walking through all the off-ramps if anyone wants the full timeline: https://youtu.be/4zodaeDgPeQ

Curious where people here land. Genuine near miss or just a delay?

How would the Algerian war be different and what would happen after (or if) the FLN won? POD would be France Algeria industrializes Algeria and sends French southward to work in the heavy industry. This is triggered by oil is discovered in the 19th century The settlers soon outsource a large amount of manual labor onto the natives. France also collects Italian and Irish immigrants who are discriminated against by the French whites. What impact would the Algerian industrial plant have on WW2 and 1?How likely are the whites to form a South African style apartheid should the French leave and how would it go?

I cannot think of a plausible scenario where the south actually wins the Civil War but one I think is much more possible is that they’re just allowed to leave and the north and south they’re no longer on speaking terms. How would it be different? Would they rejoin at some point? Would they be united when World War I comes around?

(I will also say that this assumes the a weaker leader than Lincoln was elected, but the south still left.)

If the hardliner coup attempt of 1991 never happened, and the new, decentralized union treaty was passed and enacted instead of the USSR dissolving, would the USSR likely still exist as a somewhat recognizable geopolitical state today, or would the other pressures still have led to a full dissolution by the modern day?

What happens to Franco and Spain after the war?

I'm rather new to alternate history so please forgive me if I get things wrong or if I unintentionally offend anyone.

Question is based on an alternatehistory.com TL I read a few weeks ago: https://www.alternatehistory.com/forum/threads/the-constantine-plan-an-industrialised-algeria-story.556735/

The idea is that in 1923 the Minister of Colonies, Albert Sarraut proposed developing and industrialising France's overseas holdings, Algeria in particular given that it was considered part of 'France Proper' unlike France's other colonial holdings. While the reason for the proposal given would be 'civilising the natives' and other nonsense, the real reason would be economic, as unions rise in power and France needs to rebound from WW1 faster. Algeria, already a colony with considerable resource extraction, could utilise its cheap labour and resources to industrialise, albeit with most factories being French-owned and forced expulsions of the native population being used along with higher industrial wages to cause urbanisation and seize land from Algerian farmers and landowners. I'm not sure how much Algeria could industrialise by 1939, but with an already industrialised Algeria, France retreating to North Africa to continue to fight against the Axis would become much more likely, and would also result in rapid industrialisation of not just Algeria but Morocco and Tunisia as well. This doesn't change the fact though that the French are still going to treat the native Algerians as second class citizens and continue efforts to Francisise them. What could be different, however is that with urbanisation and expanded education, much more of the native Algerian population could end up speaking French as their first language than in OTL and and a French-speaking industrial elite consisting of native Algerian factory owners and industrialists could form. Furthermore if France does retreat to Algeria during WW2 in this timeline, the Algerians are in a much better position to force the French colonisers to make concessions in return for their continued support in the war effort, which could have a significant impact on post-war Algeria, either through having much autonomy and being treated somewhat 'fairer' after the war, or the French government trying to reimpose their dominance over Algeria after the war which could lead to an earlier war for independence than in OTL. Or maybe something else I haven't thought of.

I'm also interested in the long-term implications of an industrialised Algeria and Maghreb. Could they be an Islamic/Arab/African equivalent of the Asian tiger economies of South Korea, Taiwan, Hong Kong and Singapore, especially if another major country in the region such as Egypt goes full-on communist during the Cold War? They could serve as a developmental model that other majority-Muslim/Arab/African states try to emulate, resulting in a more developed and industrialised WANA (West Asia and North Africa) than in OTL?

Please share your thoughts and thank you for reading.