Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Glloyd]

Genghis Khan lives to the age of 80 giving him 15 more years of Empire expansion as his generals no longer have to gallop back to Mongolia. How much more of the rest of the world does the Mongolian Empire include? Do the Mongolians ever learn how to conduct a naval invasion?

At best, they manage to conquer more of Hungary Austria. In reality, they probably would've just gotten bogged down fighting the Mamluks.

Okay, another interesting possible topic is, what would have happened if the Normans were defeated at Hasting.

England probably would've flipped back to the Danes before too long. That or Hardrada's descendents would take another stab at it and be successful. Like MonkeyHead said, they probably would've been inducted into the Scandinavian circle, and continue absorbing Norse culture instead of veering off and absorbing Norman French. I actually wrote a paper on the influence of Norse culture in England last year for a course (I'm a history major), and by the time the Normans came the English had already adopted a large number of Scandinavian practices and linguistic elements. It's not inconceivable to see them becoming part of a Scandinavian union, some successor to Cnut's "North Sea Empire" or whatever you want to call it. The ramifications for European politics would be huge though. First off, there would be no Hundred Years War and the English presence in France just would be less of a thing. Which would also probably mean an extremely reduced English presence in the Crusades, notably the 3rd, which was mostly an English endeavor. What would be interesting is the colonization of the Americas. I feel that Scandinavia would largely supplant England, and possibly even beat out the French earlier, the Scandinavians having a longer tradition of seafaring explorers. Add in the butterfly effect multiplying over the course of a millenium, and we'd have a very very different world today. That is assuming the Scandinavians won the inevitable infighting, which I think is the most likely outcome.

[BlindKitty]

Dont often hear people describe Zhukov as incompetent.

Zhukov did made some colossal failures during WW2. I wouldn't dismiss him or anyone else in the Red Army as woefully incompetent at the end of the war, though.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_in_Berlin

I would. Although he might have learned something over the course of the years, I really think he didn't; his tactics in the '45 was almost the same that the one he used in '42 and '43. That being said, Koniev for example have been a much better commander, from what I've gathered in my years of interest in WW II, but overall, I think that Western Allies had much better commanders.

[Neonivek]

WW1 and 2 and the wars that followed until about the 60s were very interesting because the new weapons and technology completely changed the face of combat and tactics.

To the extent that they had to entirely rewrite the book of tactics... With small samplings of modern day tactics being invented in WW2.

I'd say a large swath of generals in WW2 were incompetent... simply because to be competent in WW2 you have to create your own strategy.

[Elfeater]

I'd say a large swath of generals in WW2 were incompetent... simply because to be competent in WW2 you have to create your own strategy.

Except for the German (Rommel for one) commanders, who pretty much revolutionized the way the war was fought, massed tank formations of blitzkrieg and the like, when the Germans stormed into France, the French, even with arguably better tanks, were out matched by the tactics, and used their tanks as infantry support, scattering them.

[MonkeyHead]

In many ways the German tactics showed they had learnt the lessons from WW1 - looking to hold ground led to trenches and horrible, horrible stalemate, whereas fast and hard assaults not only gained territory but prevented much in the way of prepared defence from your enemy. War suddenly favoured the fast and the aggressive instead of those who could grit their teeth and tough it out while sitting still. Many Allied commanders were probably lulled into a false sense of superiority having come out on top in the trench based warfare, having no real reason to need to innovate, unlike German commanders.

[Zangi]

Dont often hear people describe Zhukov as incompetent.

Zhukov did made some colossal failures during WW2. I wouldn't dismiss him or anyone else in the Red Army as woefully incompetent at the end of the war, though.

Losing does not necessarily equate to incompetence.  Winning does not necessarily equate to genius either. 
There are 2 sides to a war.  The strategic/tactical overview does not rest on the shoulder of one side's leadership.  There is the other side's leadership to account for also.  (Plus you know, shit happens.)

[Elfeater]

Also, early war, quality of troops. I would honestly pit 3-5 Germans to Russians at the start and have my money on German, by the end, not so much.

[DJ]

Russia should be included on the European side. Pretty much everything important is in the European part of the country, and they wouldn't miss a chance like this to get rid of their nemesis. I reckon those numbers in the OP would look a lot different if Russia is included.

[Elfeater]

Well Russia isnt EU, which was the start of the argument I believe

[10ebbor10]

We did include non EU countries such as the Swiss as well, so...

[Sindain]

Russia should be included on the European side. Pretty much everything important is in the European part of the country, and they wouldn't miss a chance like this to get rid of their nemesis. I reckon those numbers in the OP would look a lot different if Russia is included.

Why? Would the US and Russia even be nemesis in this scenario? The main reasons Russia hates the US is leftover enmity from the Cold War and the US presence in NATO. With a US-EU war NATO would fall apart, and all of the US's influence in the Russian sphere along with it.
TBH I would think that the opposite might be more likely, the US allying with Russia. An expansionist Russia (which ya know, already kinda exists.) would inevitably come into conflict with the EU, making them a natural ally to the US. It certainly wouldn't be the first time the US and Russia allied together vs a western European power. Of course they would still have to get over the old hatred, but at the very least I seriously doubt Russia would DoW the US just as a screw you.

Though I guess Russia might just want control of the Middle East really badly or something.

[andrea]

It is a scenario involving US invading an united europe and switzerland fighting in the war. Realistic alliances have no power here.

[Elfeater]

If Europe had time to prepare, how long do you think they could fight off a combined force of the USA and Russia?

[Sergarr]

Dont often hear people describe Zhukov as incompetent.

Zhukov did made some colossal failures during WW2. I wouldn't dismiss him or anyone else in the Red Army as woefully incompetent at the end of the war, though.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_in_Berlin

I would. Although he might have learned something over the course of the years, I really think he didn't; his tactics in the '45 was almost the same that the one he used in '42 and '43. That being said, Koniev for example have been a much better commander, from what I've gathered in my years of interest in WW II, but overall, I think that Western Allies had much better commanders.

Spoiler: offtop (click to show/hide)

I learned about Koniev after I saw him in Hearts of Iron as the second 5 skill commander of USSR.

[Sindain]

It is a scenario involving US invading an united europe and switzerland fighting in the war. Realistic alliances have no power here.

You could justify most anything using that logic, and it does invalidate DJ's point about Russia joining the war to get rid of their nemesis. I say that leaving Russia out is a fine decision since we're being pretty arbitrary anyway.

Though while we're on this point how viable would a invasion via eastern Siberia be? Supply lines would be atrocious but it would pretty much remove the difficulty of launching an amphibious assault on Europe itself.