AHC: Third World Western Europe

If it loses Greece, Thrace, Illyria and Italy, then it technically would no longer be part of Europe. Basically it would be more of a Christian Persia rather than an European state.
geographically yes culturaly no its like medieval spain even thougth it was part of the european continent it was culturally seen as part of africa.
 
@Thomas1195, what about the opposite scenario to the one you presented where Rome survives or the Holy Roman Empire centralized itself ..... and much like China IOTL develops into a ossified imperial system which stagnates and lets the powers of Asia overtake it with a Century of Humiliation-esque era of being bossed around by Asian imperialists who had industrialized while the Empire stagnated occuring?
 
@Thomas1195, what about the opposite scenario to the one you presented where Rome survives or the Holy Roman Empire centralized itself ..... and much like China IOTL develops into a ossified imperial system which stagnates and lets the powers of Asia overtake it with a Century of Humiliation-esque era of being bossed around by Asian imperialists who had industrialized while the Empire stagnated occuring?
Maybe a timeline where the Islamic Golden age never ended so the Islamic world is the new hegemon while Europe looks backwards in comparison? (Although that might not be what OP wanted)
 
Maybe a worse WII without the Marshall Plan or the EEC?
That would be very much impossible since the Marshall Plan had the explicit purpose of rebuilding Western Europe to stop Communism from spreading to places like Britain, West Germany, or France. No EU or EEC wouldn't be enough to bring us to the objective of this thread.
 
Problem with most of these ideas is that they severely screw over a few country while leaving others either untouched or only inconvenienced. The OP wants all of Western Europe to be economically behind
No? You should reread my post... I understand the implausibility of trying to make the entire region poor with a no later than 1792 POD, so I’m fine with a single country. Apologies if I hadn’t made that clear.
 
No? You should reread my post... I understand the implausibility of trying to make the entire region poor with a no later than 1792 POD, so I’m fine with a single country. Apologies if I hadn’t made that clear.
Huh... I could have sworn it said something different. I stand corrected
 
No specific PoDs, but there are probably a bunch of technological developments a parallel world could just not discover that would mean slower economic growth in the last 70-100 years that gets you there for Western Europe. Less improvement in computation, energy, less global trade; slower growth.

And a world that takes self imposed constraint from environmental regulation much more seriously than ours might get there as well.

But such a world would probably more be poorer/less productive overall, rather than one with Western Europe in a different "rank". In our world, Western Europe still leads the technological frontier in productivity, and others have converged or exceeded to in GDP/capita by exporting to it, copying its best practices, or are essentially the same societies as Western Europe with higher working hours (e.g. that's the USA). (The exceptions to this are led transient resource income like the UAE, or are based on financial flows that move through borders out of proportion to the rest of the economy, like Singapore). If you don't replace that role with other societies that *lead* technological growth to a much greater extent, you probably just have a generally poorer world (though may be one that is in some respects socially or environmentally in a better state!).
 
Prevent colonialism?
With a POD after 1792? Too late. And even with an earlier POD that avoids colonialism it wouldn't work. A large amount of the colonies weren't profitable and a large part of the wealth of European countries did not depend on colonies. Even during the Dutch Golden Age most wealth for the Netherlands was not created by trade in spoces in Asia or out of the trade in sugar in the America's but by trade within Europe, with Italy, Turkey, the Baltics, etc. Soremove the colonies and the Netherlands would still be wealthy, just not as wealthy.
 
Maybe a worse WII without the Marshall Plan or the EEC?
By the time of WWII you already have Western Europe outperforming the Eastern Europe by a significant margin (the East had wars, famines, unrest in the wake of WWI that the West didn't)
 
Mmm, at first I thought maybe no French Revolution. With France not only keeping the mess that is its Ancien Regime but also falling in a Poland-Lithuania-style noble anarchy.
However then you still have the Netherlands and Britain. I suppose the Dutch rebellion can fail with the butterflies reaching Britain preventing the Glorious Revolution, English Agricultural Revolution, etc.
The feudal mess would prevent the Industrial Revolution from taking place in Britain. Instead the first industrializer becomes, IDK absolutist Scandinavia with an industrial revolution based on water power. The industrial revolution ends up spreading it gets taken over by other absolutist regimes, but not by the countries of West-Europe who have fallen in a Poland-Lithuania-style noble anarchy and are thus unable to launch the necessary reforms.
 
Mmm, at first I thought maybe no French Revolution. With France not only keeping the mess that is its Ancien Regime but also falling in a Poland-Lithuania-style noble anarchy.
However then you still have the Netherlands and Britain. I suppose the Dutch rebellion can fail with the butterflies reaching Britain preventing the Glorious Revolution, English Agricultural Revolution, etc.
The feudal mess would prevent the Industrial Revolution from taking place in Britain. Instead the first industrializer becomes, IDK absolutist Scandinavia with an industrial revolution based on water power. The industrial revolution ends up spreading it gets taken over by other absolutist regimes, but not by the countries of West-Europe who have fallen in a Poland-Lithuania-style noble anarchy and are thus unable to launch the necessary reforms.
Since it doesn't need to be the entirety of West Europe (the OP said the entire region being third world is a bit impossible), I the lack of the French Revolution may cause a divide in maybe Britain and the Netherlands/Low Countries being developed while the rest remains underdeveloped (the Glorious Revolution not happening wouldn't stop the Industrial revolution in my opinion, since the groundwork started with enclosures in Tudor times expelling free peasants). I think it makes sense that a non-revolutionary France may cause the region to be underdeveloped, since at the time France had barely any industry and had basically focused itself on an agrarian export-based economy (at least from what my history classes on pre-revolutionary France told me)
 
Last edited:
Maybe Napoleon decides not to invade Russia, is able to consolidate his hold on his Empire and hegemony over the rest of Western and Central continental Europe, and Bonapartism evolves into some sort of corrupt and despotic regime that, combined with the autarky of the Continental System, dominates the area for a good 75 to 100 years, and once it falls apart the successor states fall into Argentina-like cycles.
This seems like the most plausible option to me- Napoleon can deal with Russia as long as he makes them figjt on his terms instead of running around trying to get to them. Let the Russians impale themselves in an invasion of Poland and once you've crippled them there then you can do whatever you want. Then it's just about maintaining the continental system and apart from Britain, Europe is isolated from the flows of world trade.
 
Make the Dark Age actually dark, at the same time, have the Byzantine Empire losing its European lands, so it would no longer be an European state.

To make the Dark Age actually dark, you must make the Fall of WRE much more violent and destructive, at least the same destruction as the OTL Gothic War must occur not just in Italy but throughout the Roman Empire's European lands including Greece and Thrace.
I think then the only result is a somewhat more Norse/Germanic, but just as wealthy Europe. Trade routes will continue to build wealth. Exploration will lead to a more advanced society. They will at some point be able to loot the new world in all probablity, which means they'll get access to Potatoes and Maize which will explode their population.

And if they're writing their history in runes rather than the latin alphabet, does it matter?

While 'Guns,Germs,Steel and Geography' can be overstated, Europe's fundementals of navicable rivers, nearness to resources, yet enough mountains and seas to make political unity difficult, makes Europe formidible.

Keep feudalism and make the lords short sighted might work, but it's hard to see.
 
Seeing as Western Europe is largely developed and rich OTL, a far cry from it’s Eastern counterpart, what steps could be realistically taken with a POD of no earlier than 1792 to make it more poorer and less developed than OTL? It doesn’t have to be the entire region, but obviously more countries the merrier (for the sake of this challenge; I do not wish economic retardation on Western Europeans)View attachment 591101
Map of Western Europe

My personal definitions of Third World for this challenge. This is only what my interpretation of what “Third World” can mean.
Two out of three of these parameters should work.
  • GDP per capita (nominal) lower than $15,000
  • HDI lower than 0.800
  • Corruption index lower than 50
Bonus points if it’s Switzerland, the Benelux or Scandinavia.


Disclaimer: In this case, the meaning of “Third World” is contextually used in regards to a country’s stage of economic development, not it’s Cold War bloc alignment. I had initially pondered on using “developing” instead of Third World, but the latter felt like a better description. I am aware that the term is a bit broad in it’s description, since it is also used as describing extremely underdeveloped failed states like Syria and Afghanistan, but in this situation ”Third World” can be countries like Mexico, which is economically poor but still a functional state not mired in civil war.
Maybe dictatorships in Southern Europe with isolationist tendencies. Maybe a wank where Ireland didnt develope to much anf the countryside remain very poor.
 
Maybe dictatorships in Southern Europe with isolationist tendencies. Maybe a wank where Ireland didnt develope to much anf the countryside remain very poor.
Doesn’t really need a wank for limiting Ireland’s growth, simply have the EEC decide not to accept Ireland as a member which means no support for infrastructure, no CAP funding, limited access to the SM... In OTL there was serious questions/concerns that the U.K. would be accepted but Ireland wouldn’t be, with questions over how rural/underdeveloped it was and not being a NATO member.
 
Make the Dark Age actually dark, at the same time, have the Byzantine Empire losing its European lands, so it would no longer be an European state.

To make the Dark Age actually dark, you must make the Fall of WRE much more violent and destructive, at least the same destruction as the OTL Gothic War must occur not just in Italy but throughout the Roman Empire's European lands including Greece and Thrace.
The OP said a POD after 1792.
 
The OP said a POD after 1792.
Missed that. At that point, it's too late.

The West already is well on its way to industrial revolution and has evolved past feudalism, while the majority of the East is still stuck in a mostly feudal state - under a slightly different name and under szlachta/boyars/whatever the Hungarian equivalent is instead of the king, but the general rules are the same. This means no incentive to progress, no manufactures, no sciences. Even the most progressive ruler(s) can't fix that, and even if you have some cataclysm befall the West, they already have the things the East lacks, and if they lose them, they can just regain them in a generation or so.
 
Top