AHC: North America is like the Middle East

Create a scenario in which North America is a political and/or religious/cultural hotbed of tension that resembles the Middle East of our timeline.
 
Perhaps an early contact between Europeans and native Americans which helps to build their immunity and possibly gives them horses as well. Maybe Viking settlements last longer than OTL leading to greater contact.

This means when Europeans later show up the natives will be better prepared to take them on. This longterm means that Europeans negotiate more with the natives and several nation states develop around native and European cultural and religious divides.

That's my initial thought at least.
 
Probably the only two areas that can be plausibly middleasternified are the Balkans and an enlarged Subcontinent that includes Afghanistan, Tibet, Myanmar and maybe some of the Stans.
 
Middle East is so firey because of its unique history and geography. So basically ASB.

Probably the only two areas that can be plausibly middleasternified are the Balkans and an enlarged Subcontinent that includes Afghanistan, Tibet, Myanmar and maybe some of the Stans.

The POD is before 1900. It doesn't take an ASB to break laws of physics to make a very destructive version of North America. Hell you could with a POD of 1500 or even beforehand allowing several centuries of divergence and history to fall through
 

Albert.Nik

Banned
The POD is before 1900. It doesn't take an ASB to break laws of physics to make a very destructive version of North America. Hell you could with a POD of 1500 or even beforehand allowing several centuries of divergence and history to fall through
The Middle East religious and ethnic and sometime both diversities is very difficult to achieve with an European majority America already. Also the Native Americans were also different then. Probably if the Columbus mission had happened later,it could have been possible. With the contact of both Americans and Europeans,this timeline is only ASB.
 
The Middle East religious and ethnic and sometime both diversities is very difficult to achieve with an European majority America already. Also the Native Americans were also different then. Probably if the Columbus mission had happened later,it could have been possible. With the contact of both Americans and Europeans,this timeline is only ASB.

It doesn't take magic, time travel, alien intervention, God, Allah, or anything remotely impossible for this to occur, especially for a pre-1900 POD. You could go even further, going so far as 4000 BCE and attempt to change the course of history in the Bronze and Iron Ages in the Americas such as the introduction of some key animals to stimulate unique civilisation building thousands of years before the present.
 

Albert.Nik

Banned
It doesn't take magic, time travel, alien intervention, God, Allah, or anything remotely impossible for this to occur, especially for a pre-1900 POD. You could go even further, going so far as 4000 BCE and attempt to change the course of history in the Bronze and Iron Ages in the Americas such as the introduction of some key animals to stimulate unique civilisation building thousands of years before the present.
Then that must be mentioned. From what the OP is,I'm inferring it is an European America that is for this challenge.
With that apart,this scenario is still near ASB as well. The reason for Americas being backward is that Humans settled it late and hence the developments from Old World couldn't spread there easily as it spread here through migrants,visitors and invasions/expansions.
 

Albert.Nik

Banned
Added to all this,the landscape diversity and the expanse and the recorded history bring so long in the Old World is almost impossible to replicate in the New World if there is no ASB events. ASB events also include Evolution and Gological PODs. You could put a case of them being attached to Old World or a different type of evolution happening. Both are ASB.
 

Skallagrim

Banned
It's wrong to assume that a region can only be a hotbed of conflict due to very specific circumstances. It's all too easy to say "well, the Middle East is like this because [reason X], and we can't just replicate that exact reason". Sure. But you can easily introduce other reasons that would have a similar effect.

Squabbling states can easily arise from a 'non Constitution' POD that sees the Articles fail as well. The thirteen colonies fall apart, and fight wars over their overlapping claims. Decades of unpleasant occupations here and there cause resentment. When the next religious awakening hits, various extremist cults rise to prominence, assuming command over certain regions (a bit like the Mormons of OTL, but generally less pleasant, and getting more support because they generally tie their ideology to the interests of the state where they are welcomed.) Thus, you get a lot of pseudo-theocracies which tie their religious identity to militarist nationalism/imperialism.

Further out west, revolutions against Mexico still occur. Lousiana becomes its own state, occupied by Georgia from time to time (until the next revolution, you know). Texas becomes an ethnically divided powderkeg, where the Latinos get oppressed when the Anglos are in power and vice versa. California goes its own way, but can't control the hinterland, which remains bandit country for quite some time. (A parallel to the desert of inner Arabia, perhaps?) Meanwhile, the vast share of Louisiana Country becomes a disputed no man's land, kept in some vague semblance of order by periodic British peace-keeping missions staged out of Canada. And naturally, Alaska remains Russian, but at some point secedes when oil is found, and becomes a cruel dictatorship based on oil wealth.

All of this can be achieved without any ASB. People who yell "ASB! ASB!" all the time just lack imagination.
 

Albert.Nik

Banned
It's wrong to assume that a region can only be a hotbed of conflict due to very specific circumstances. It's all too easy to say "well, the Middle East is like this because [reason X], and we can't just replicate that exact reason". Sure. But you can easily introduce other reasons that would have a similar effect.

Squabbling states can easily arise from a 'non Constitution' POD that sees the Articles fail as well. The thirteen colonies fall apart, and fight wars over their overlapping claims. Decades of unpleasant occupations here and there cause resentment. When the next religious awakening hits, various extremist cults rise to prominence, assuming command over certain regions (a bit like the Mormons of OTL, but generally less pleasant, and getting more support because they generally tie their ideology to the interests of the state where they are welcomed.) Thus, you get a lot of pseudo-theocracies which tie their religious identity to militarist nationalism/imperialism.

Further out west, revolutions against Mexico still occur. Lousiana becomes its own state, occupied by Georgia from time to time (until the next revolution, you know). Texas becomes an ethnically divided powderkeg, where the Latinos get oppressed when the Anglos are in power and vice versa. California goes its own way, but can't control the hinterland, which remains bandit country for quite some time. (A parallel to the desert of inner Arabia, perhaps?) Meanwhile, the vast share of Louisiana Country becomes a disputed no man's land, kept in some vague semblance of order by periodic British peace-keeping missions staged out of Canada. And naturally, Alaska remains Russian, but at some point secedes when oil is found, and becomes a cruel dictatorship based on oil wealth.

All of this can be achieved without any ASB. People who yell "ASB! ASB!" all the time just lack imagination.
Nothing in the European colonialism can result in the level of conflicts in the Middle East. Please note that the conflict goes back even up to Bronze age and the Iron age. The conflict existed even since then. It is a huge mishmash of ethnicities. You get migrations from the North(Caucasus/Steppe),Northwest(Europe/Balkans),NorthEast(Steppes,Iran and Central Asia),Southeast(Iran),South(Arabia and Africa),Southwest(North Africa),West(accessable by all across the Europe and the Mediterranean) and these regions being very diverse from each other and the History is very very complex compared to anywhere else. Plus this is the birthplace of all the three major religions. The effects and conflicts of the Middle East reverberates even in the nations farthest from there. That is the magnitude. Except Geological or Evolution PODs,this is simply impossible to make North America exactly like the Middle East. Conflicts in Latin America,Indian subcontinent,Africa,Europe exist no doubt. But these are conflicts that can be solved with just a change of type of Governments,more free markets and such. But solving conflicts in the Middle East require deeper solutions.
 

Skallagrim

Banned
Nothing in the European colonialism can result in the level of conflicts in the Middle East. Please note that the conflict goes back even up to Bronze age and the Iron age. The conflict existed even since then. It is a huge mishmash of ethnicities.

Whereas all other parts of the world were totally peaceful, totally didn't feuture endemic warfare, and weren't a huge mishmash of ethnicities. Get real. Conflict existed everywhere, all the time, and the area now called the Middle East was in no way uniquely violent or troubled. Its current problems are undeniable, but you might consider that they're not exceptional. instead, the relative tranquility of the post-1945 West is the big historical exception. It's very easy to see a world where that doesn't come to be.


You get migrations from the North(Caucasus/Steppe),Northwest(Europe/Balkans),NorthEast(Steppes,Iran and Central Asia),Southeast(Iran),South(Arabia and Africa),Southwest(North Africa),West(accessable by all across the Europe and the Mediterranean)

You get invasions and migrations everywhere. It's historically normal, and pretendin that the Middle East is uniquely over-affected by this is just complete (self-)deception. It's just blatantly untrue.


and these regions being very diverse from each other and the History is very very complex compared to anywhere else.

No, history shows the same amount of complexity just about everywhere.


Plus this is the birthplace of all the three major religions.

So what? You may have noticed that the Thirty Years' War occurring right in the heart of Europe. If "oh boy, Abrahamic religion!" is somehow an issue unique to the Middle East, that shouldn't have been the case. Your premise only holds if you cling to the notion that every conflict involving any Abrahamic religion is actually purely there because of the eeeeevvvvviiiiilllllll legacy of the Middle East. Which is ridiculous....


The effects and conflicts of the Middle East reverberates even in the nations farthest from there. That is the magnitude.

....but you outright claim it anyway. Nevetheless, this is an absurdly reductionist way of looking at historical causality. This kind of logic means that every development must be ascribed fully and exclusively to its first point of origin. By that reasoning, every single human conflict is the result of the first proto-man way back when in Africa hitting another proto-man over the head with a rock. That's an absurd notion, but no more absurd than yours. (In fact, less absurd, because you just randomly point at the Middle East and claim that that's the unique Place of Troubles-- which is actually just your random bias talking.)


Except Geological or Evolution PODs,this is simply impossible to make North America exactly like the Middle East.

The determinism is strong in this one.


Conflicts in Latin America,Indian subcontinent,Africa,Europe exist no doubt. But these are conflicts that can be solved with just a change of type of Governments,more free markets and such. But solving conflicts in the Middle East require deeper solutions.

I'm not sure whether to laugh or to just sadly shake my head at that much cultural reductionism.
 
I'll try this. You already have one ingredient. In the mid 20th century, the United States was the world's largest oil producer, and by "oil" I mean light sweet crude.

First, the Jeffersonians and both more incompetent and more aggressive than IOTL, so the War of 1812 or its equivalent goes worse. New England forms a confederacy and breaks away. The British actually gain some territory, I'm thinking what became the states of Michigan and Maine plus New Orleans.

Because the War of 1812 is fought differently, one of the men who dies during the IOTL war survives and becomes a charismatic preacher or prophet. He preaches a form of Christianity so heretical that it is essentially a separate religion and large numbers of Americans convert. His followers move into Texas and settle that area.

The Deep South also breaks away from the United States and forms their own country, earlier than 1861, due to some tariff crisis. There is no forceful attempt to keep them in because of the precedent set by the secession of New England. This means its not realistic for an independent Texas to join the USA. They do join the southern Confederacy but will break away later after the discovery of oil.

The British are meddling extensively, and because the rump USA counters by drawing closer to France, French influence increases, though not as much as the British.

Because the United States is weaker, its western frontier never gets passed the Continental divide. The Mormons form their own country in Utah which is much more aggressive than IOTL. The British keep the Pacific Northwest. California breaks off from Mexico, but to counter the British seeks Russian protection, and the Russians keep Alaska, so there is now Russian meddling on top of the existing British and French meddling.

The rump USA becomes a loose confederation. At some point New York City breaks off into its own city states, but the city government is unable to keep various immigrant groups, starting with the Irish, from forming their own militias and engaging in street fighting among themselves.

Several attempts are made by its neighbors to take out Utah but they all fail and Utah builds a large army. The Mormons also start persecuting the gentile populations within Utah, some of which they have gained through conquests. The army could be funded by gold and silver mines they conquer.

After the oil industry is started in Texas, the Texas start funding expansion of their pretty ignorant religion. Texas becomes a sort of theocracy and gets the other English speaking countries to do the same. Attempts to put in more secular and nationalistic governments in the other countries are undermined by the Texans, the Mormons, or British intelligence.

There you go!
 
The POD is before 1900. It doesn't take an ASB to break laws of physics to make a very destructive version of North America. Hell you could with a POD of 1500 or even beforehand allowing several centuries of divergence and history to fall through
Okay So get competing religions with military and socio strength to compete..

Not just Christian subdivisions, unless you can make them crazy militant, but if that's the car Europe is screwed
 

Albert.Nik

Banned
@Skallagrim is making a mixture like the todays Middle East of statements of what I meant. The Middle East culture is shaped much by climate. The region is completely desert and large swatches of land on all sides except Anatolia are mostly uninhabitable by an agricultural civilization of a significantly large population except in River valleys which of course are precious but narrow. Harsh climate creates huge shortages of resources. This is reflected in the psychological makeup of the people of the region. Middle East is also easily accessible to all major regions of the World. It is a confluence of three massively affecting continents of the World Civilization. It stands at the forefront of invasions from Central Asia,East Asia,Africa,Europe and it lived up to this. Middle East has maintained a distinction of being more affected by conflicts than other regions. Yes,conflicts did happen in other parts too,I agree. But most of those conflicts aren't never ending. They end somewhere. And they did. Middle East is also a Geological scenario. It is the plate junction that created the Oil that is abundant in there. The plate junction has also caused the unique continental junction. In Europe and elsewhere,it's a tale of two traditional enemies. But Middle East saw waves of invaders almost uninterrupted. First were the Hittites and the Mesopotamian Civilizations,then shortly came the Indo-European Hittites,then came the Babylonian invaders, Then came the Iranians,then came the Greeks,then came the Romans,then came an another dynasty of Persia,then came the Arabs,then came the Mongols,then came the Turks and various conflicts between their settlers that took place. The destructions caused by each wars were huge and almost unparalleled. All this shaped the cultures,borders,Governments,the various beliefs originating. The religious originating there have all their most holy places there making the whole conflict to an another level. In general,Middle East is a class apart in itself no matter what conflicts arose and were fought and eliminated elsewhere.
 
I would start with some surviving Native American civilizations in the West, similar to the Land of Salmon and Totems TL which has a domestication of a potato-like crop lead to a PNW empire. Then I would have a US that stays under the Articles of Confederation and evolves into something like the Holy Roman Empire that exerts a minimum of power while the states act, and expand, like independent countries. Then I would have Mexico fall into infighting to a degree that it is not capable of protecting power north of the Chihuahuan Desert, which leaves the by now nomadic pastoralist Apache/Southwest Athabascans, the Californios and the Comancheria/plains tribes to evolve on their own with little interference. Then, I would have a more intensely abolitionist Second Great Awakening that ties into the rivalry between slave and free states expanding Westward, causing a sharper and potentially violent division between Northern and Southern Christian denominations. This chaos would also deter some immigration from Europe, giving the aforementioned plains tribes some breathing room as they become ever-more adapted to their horse nomadic culture. Finally, I would have the Mormons, either on their way to Utah or in situ once there, evolve into a violently proselytizing religion akin to the Ori from Stargate, converting the plains tribes and the Comanche/Apache and causing them and themselves to come into conflict with the PNW empire, the Catholic Californios and everyone else, especially as the plains nations begin invading the established states to their east.
 
Top