Take the current highest-yield nuclear bomb and destroy England right before the begin of their collonial era.
Generally speaking, I believe removing a global superpower just before they do their world-changing thing is probably going to have the biggest effect on the timeline.
Everyone was building empires at the time and fighting over who got what. All that nuking England would do is to mean France, the netherlands, germany, spain etc would get more bits
It would only be a deterrent for empire building if there’s a pattern (probably 3 or 4 similar events), otherwise people would consider it a random hateful act of god, of which there are many, and of which have been interpreted many different ways
I was focussing on changing the timeline, not on deterring nations from doing something. Without English colonializers, there would have certainly been other colonizers, but e.g. the whole China situation would have likely been very different. There would not be a dominant anglo culture right now. No English-speaking USA, no English-speaking Australia, no large countries with an anglo common law-based legal system.
Take the current highest-yield nuclear bomb and destroy England right before the begin of their collonial era.
Generally speaking, I believe removing a global superpower just before they do their world-changing thing is probably going to have the biggest effect on the timeline.
Everyone was building empires at the time and fighting over who got what. All that nuking England would do is to mean France, the netherlands, germany, spain etc would get more bits
Of course it wouldn’t stop colonialization, but it would change the future quite a lot.
I think that should shake up the timeline quite a bit.
No, you’d just have the exact same thing but with another nationality. France had like half of Africa so they’d definitely be bigger.
And wouldn’t that completely shift worldwide powerbalanes for centuries to come?
For example, would WW2 have happened if France had been a global superpower instead of a pushover?
Would the american revolution have happened with another colonial ruler?
Without that example, would the french revolution have happened?
Without both revolutions, would democracy be a thing by now, or would we still have totalitarian monarchies?
You know the butterfly effect? It’s the same except we aren’t killing a butterfly but instead one of the superpower nations of that time.
France was never a pushover. The idea that being invaded by a bigger stronger army was their fault is weird and one I’ve only heard in the US.
Most countries that are colonies eventually seek independence, including most that France had.
It would only be a deterrent for empire building if there’s a pattern (probably 3 or 4 similar events), otherwise people would consider it a random hateful act of god, of which there are many, and of which have been interpreted many different ways
I was focussing on changing the timeline, not on deterring nations from doing something. Without English colonializers, there would have certainly been other colonizers, but e.g. the whole China situation would have likely been very different. There would not be a dominant anglo culture right now. No English-speaking USA, no English-speaking Australia, no large countries with an anglo common law-based legal system.
It would change the timeline quite a bit.