The Rebels themselves never wanted to capture all of India, the idea that they were fighting for Indian independence is a modern spin, both the Mughals and the Marathas were just looking to free their own territory. So even if the rebellion had been a complete success, Britain would still have...
Nationalism has its advantages, it's the rise of nationalism that resulted in the decline of tribalism and other ethnic loyalties. There may have been more wars and bloodshed if not for nationalism. Humans by nature are looking to become a part of a larger group and nationalism provides that...
Without Britain, Mysore would have became a major player. With no one to check their expansion Mysore would have extended to south. They would be a barrier between the French based in east coast and Portuguese in west coast and the Dutch in Srilanka.
Most likely the French would have advanced...
Native Americans - controlling much of present day US and Canada
Mali - controlling most of North Africa
Chola - controlling south India and large parts of SE Asia
Korea - controlling Manchuria and Japan
There is a little clarity over the maurya-selucid war, western historians see this as a successful raid by the Seleucids that forced Chandragupta to give away his War Elephants. Indian historians see this as a sucessful attack by the Mauryas that forced the Seleucid to cede parts of modern day...
Too bad this is not possible in Civ IV,
Usually by the early 22nd century Global warming makes the game unplayable by turning most tiles into deserts,especially if nukes had been used.
Assuming Saddam launches a blitzkrieg, Nato would react by sending in whatever they can to prevent Iraqi advance. Airborne divisions from US, UK and France may end up fighting the vanguard of the Iraqi army, while the Nato Airforces pound them from the air.
Also its unlikely that the Saudi...
Aztecs and Mayas may become more advanced, most likely they would have metal working and Bronze or Iron weapons. Its likely that Native Americans in the north would have started farming and would have settled down, this could lead to cities and a stable civilization and may even lead to more...
Agree with most of what you said, but this part is inaccurate
Even during the time of the cholas, the brahmins were the priestly caste, ofcourse they themselves were divided between shivas and vaishnavas and were often at odds with each other.
Plassey is one example where political maneuvering played a crucial role. But even Plassey can't be considered as classic 'divide and rule'. In Plassey it was not the case where one Indian ethnic group was turned against another. It was just that the commander betrayed his own king to earn a...
I get the feeling that Divide and Rule is given far more credit than it deserves. Its not like any foreign ruler could come into India, play one kingdom against another and conquer the country.
The British managed to do that, not because of their policy but because of their technological...
One problem is that there were already merchant communities in India producing the same goods and making a lot of money out of it. They are unlikely to accept any new merchants coming to their land and undercutting their profit.
Militarily it would be very difficult for Roman Empire to conquer...
The question is could this create a Gandhi dynasty, with Gandhi's sons entering into politics and using the name recognition to become Prime ministers.
During the early 50, both India and China had a pretty friendly relationship, which was fueled by a shared sense of angst against the west. There were even slogans to the effect 'Chinese and Indians are brothers'. Ofcourse the whole thing collapsed as the border dispute grew more and more...