Different place-names with minimum divergence?

Anybody have any?

I was thinking that the USA could've been known as the CSA if the Continental Congress had phrased a few documents ever-so-slightly differntly, but really any name-changes from any period would be awesome.
 
Much of the world was 'discovered' and named by Europeans and their descendants in a fairely random manner, so a lot of these names could be different either because a different naming fashion came into use, or because the first contact was mediated through a different language. Imagine, just for the fun of it, that 16th century Spain had developed a fashion for Roman placenames (it's the high Renaissance, sure they could have). Instead of naming cities up and down Latin America for the saints of their main churches, they would name them after Roman foundations. Goodbye San Diego, Santiago, San Francisco, Los Angeles, San Bernardino, San Andreas, San Salvador . . . 34th East Drive, Numantia, CA?

Or give the Walter Scott crowd more influence in naming patterns in the early United States and watch the early West blossom with Kenilworths, Runnymedes and other twee Olde Englyssche places.

Change the demographics of the Irish or Italian immigration and you could have as many New Waterfords, Garibaldivilles and Limericks in the Western US as you have New Berlins, Altoonas and Frankfurts.

And places like New Guinea, Australia, New Zealand or New Caledonia could easily end up having completely different names if history had changed ever so slightly.
 
the Americas being known as the Americas is almost totally random, and owes more to Amerigo Vespucci's abilities at self-promotion and a few names in geography books being positioned in the right place at the right time than anything else.
 
Top