Idea: Every major technological innovation happens ~100 years earlier (Starting with the industrial revolution)

What if the industrial revolution happened about 100 years prior, and thus every technological innovation after... I thought of this earlier, and it seems like an interesting idea.
 
What if the industrial revolution happened about 100 years prior, and thus every technological innovation after... I thought of this earlier, and it seems like an interesting idea.
So airplanes by 1803. The Civil War would be cool I guess. Hmm, I wonder who would be the first Confederate ace or what they would be called.
 
There would also be nukes (by the 1840s) so yes, in the civil war...
I wonder how Lincoln would be with nukes...
Nukes would exist sometime around 1844-1845. So if everything happens as it did in the 1940s we should have hundreds if not thousands of nukes by that point. The loss of life would be in a word...unreal.
 
so the revolutionary war would have the technology of the civil war oh boy the usa i dont think would even exist since the Brittan does now have a bigger a bigger indtustrial base and maybe it can crush america like it did with boer republics
 
so the revolutionary war would have the technology of the civil war oh boy the usa i dont think would even exist since the Brittan does now have a bigger a bigger indtustrial base and maybe it can crush america like it did with boer republics
So would the US and the other nations. Just so we don't enter a ton of what-ifs let's just think of this as everything happens 100 years sooner. Otherwise, a lot of things wouldn't happen or even exist.
 
Nukes would exist sometime around 1844-1845. So if everything happens as it did in the 1940s we should have hundreds if not thousands of nukes by that point. The loss of life would be in a word...unreal.
I don't think the civil war would see nuclear fire. They'd probably become DC's means of enforcing the Monroe doctrine for a while. But here's the thing, assuming the order of nuclear weapon is still America, Russia, and then Britain... there wouldn't be a Germany to surrender.
 
If technology was accelerated by 100 years in the 19th/20th century, then we could see a rapid decline in war, especially in Europe, because technology would simply make war too costly in terms of military and civilian lives by the first half of the 1800s. The Napoleonic Wars would see a massive boost in causalities as a result of planes, chemical weapons, and landships.

Sadly I'm not sure if European integration akin to the EU is even possible during the early 1800s, since the balance of power concept is still the norm in European politics. More likely that an arms race could occur between the Great Powers early on, causing an uneasy peace since no one wants to fight one another unless they want to get bogged down in a major total war, or worse: they get nuked.
 
If technology was accelerated by 100 years in the 19th/20th century, then we could see a rapid decline in war, especially in Europe, because technology would simply make war too costly in terms of military and civilian lives by the first half of the 1800s. The Napoleonic Wars would see a massive boost in causalities as a result of planes, chemical weapons, and landships.

Sadly I'm not sure if European integration akin to the EU is even possible during the early 1800s, since the balance of power concept is still the norm in European politics. More likely that an arms race could occur between the Great Powers early on, causing an uneasy peace since no one wants to fight one another unless they want to get bogged down in a major total war, or worse: they get nuked.
I would have to agree with the above post. Technology at this level makes wars basically pointless as both sides could cost you more money/goods than you would gain by waging the war. A war is, after all, about gains. If any possible conflict is going to cost you more money then you're likely to see then you shouldn't start that conflict as you'll lose more then what you would gain in the war itself.

It's why wars don't happen as much. Most wars nowadays aren't nations vs nations, it's civil wars/insurgencies or proxy wars when nations are using other nations to gain an edge. That is if the fighting isn't happening on the web in which case nobody dies and the only real loss is in money and or top-secret classified information.
 
Last edited:
What I think is the real question isn't what conflicts would happen around the world as should be clear by now very few would happen, at least any wars that would end up mattering too much. It's what kind of conflicts would exist in space as we would be in space by this time and would've already established a fair few colonies on the Moon and on Mars if not all the way into the asteroid belt.
 

Lusitania

Donor
Ok if every invention happen 100 years earlier forget about US or most countries that exist today being the same. Therefore all your reference points be gone so would all the people in charge be different
 
Ok if every invention happens a centary earlier forget about the US or most other countries that exist today being the same. Therefore all your reference points would be gone as would all the people in charge.
Any nation that is less than 300 would most likely not exist such as the United States. But if we have to think about what the world would be like with technological advancements happening a century earlier it would be truly endless. You would end up having entirely different superpowers, with entirely different histories, territorial disputes, ethnic makeup/populations, and forms of government.

But even so by this world's 2020-2021 we would have been in space for at least a whole century and had people living on the Moon/Mars for at least a generation or two. It's just a matter of what type of tech drives the ships. Sublight speeds or FTL speeds. I would guess we would still be going sublight.
 
Last edited:
Would the west share inventions like penicillin or antibiotics with local natives? If not south africa would be as white as south america.
 
It's why wars don't happen as much. Most wars nowadays aren't nations vs nations, it's civil wars/insurgencies or proxy wars when nations are using other nations to gain an edge. That is if the fighting isn't happening on the web in which case nobody dies and the only real loss is in money and or top-secret classified information.
Cyberwarfare can certainly be lethal with how connected everything is. And arguably propaganda through cyberwarfare can kill people too if it destabilises a country enough.
What I think is the real question isn't what conflicts would happen around the world as should be clear by now very few would happen, at least any wars that would end up mattering too much. It's what kind of conflicts would exist in space as we would be in space by this time and would've already established a fair few colonies on the Moon and on Mars if not all the way into the asteroid belt.
Any conflict in space has the same spectre of MAD hanging overhead since dropping asteroids/space colonies onto Earth and with the energy available to the nations/megacorporations/whoever involved, any space colony can be annihilated in an instant with nuclear, chemical, or kinetic weapons. Even cyberwarfare could be very lethal since it could mess up the climate control in a colony, vent the atmosphere into space, etc. Ergo, there's still not a lot of reason to fight since the consequences are so destructive.
But even so by this world's 2020-2021 we would have been in space for at least a whole century and had people living on the Moon/Mars for at least a generation or two. It's just a matter of what type of tech drives the ships. Sublight speeds or FTL speeds. I would guess we would still be going sublight.
Very doubtful, unless you mean like Antarctica-styled outposts for Mars or a few remote-operated mines on the Moon with more Antarctica-styled bases, outposts, and hotels.
Would the west share inventions like penicillin or antibiotics with local natives? If not south africa would be as white as south america.
Probably, since American Indians in the US and Canada would receive treatment with modern medicine, even if that treatment was poor and sporadic. There were also vaccination programs even in the 19th century which were poorly funded so you'd expect more of that. Private organisations and changing racial attitudes would certainly help.
 
Probably, since American Indians in the US and Canada would receive treatment with modern medicine, even if that treatment was poor and sporadic. There were also vaccination programs even in the 19th century which were poorly funded so you'd expect more of that. Private organisations and changing racial attitudes would certainly help.

Aren't we dealing with the 1760's attitude towards natives? I don't think they would try to exterminate the local population but I dout they would activly share especialy the dutch the might sell it without proper storage etc but I doubt they would hand it out for free. Also a larger european population will probably mean the zulu wars is going to happen faster the OTL. They might sell to Xhosa farmers and the mixed races but not to a warrior race like the zulu, the bushmen have nothing of value to trade.

The haitian war of independance will probably be worse because they would not have the capability to produce the medicine's themself. But have had then for over a 100 years increasing their population. If that would be cut off afther a war that destroyed amongst other sewer infrastructure etc it would be a masacre. I doubt small pox would be erradicated by then or something like the WHO could have formed with the european mentality of the time
 
Last edited:
Cyberwarfare can certainly be lethal with how connected everything is. And arguably propaganda through cyberwarfare can kill people too if it destabilises a country enough.

Any conflict in space has the same spectre of MAD hanging overhead since dropping asteroids/space colonies onto Earth and with the energy available to the nations/megacorporations/whoever involved, any space colony can be annihilated in an instant with nuclear, chemical, or kinetic weapons. Even cyberwarfare could be very lethal since it could mess up the climate control in a colony, vent the atmosphere into space, etc. Ergo, there's still not a lot of reason to fight since the consequences are so destructive.

Very doubtful, unless you mean like Antarctica-styled outposts for Mars or a few remote-operated mines on the Moon with more Antarctica-styled bases, outposts, and hotels.

Probably, since American Indians in the US and Canada would receive treatment with modern medicine, even if that treatment was poor and sporadic. There were also vaccination programs even in the 19th century which were poorly funded so you'd expect more of that. Private organisations and changing racial attitudes would certainly help.
1-Sure if the cyber warfare was for some unknown reason aimed at hospitals and other government facilities that aren't necessarily key infrastructure. The kinds of people doing this are far more likely going to be aimed at the power network and moving money away from accounts into what I'll call black accounts to fund black-ops jobs.

2-Very true, however, I doubt we would be able to drop asteroids as easy as how you making it out to be. You would need time to send something to get one and time to move it into place. Somebody's bound to see it in transit and so the element of surprise is entirely lost. It can be done sure but this isn't the movies. I doubt very highly we'll see anything as bombastically and over-the-top as an asteroid bombardment campaign.

3-Given the fact we are planning on sending people to the Moon by the 2020s and onto Mars likely by the 2030-2040s the idea our tech would still be at that level by this world's 2040s is I think a bit doubtful. It isn't going to be a five-star hotel to be sure but come on man your acting like we wouldn't be aiming for some level of creature comforts in our housing units. Remember this is 100 years sooner. We would have been living in space for a century at this point. No reason why the tech should be viewed as the same as what we have today.
 
Last edited:

Lusitania

Donor
Ok the problem with the idea that we have all technology 100 years before such as industrial Revolution is that that means the knowledge and understanding that led to their discovery also exist 100 years before. You cannot have one without the other. This even means that Renaissance needs to happen earlier. Where do we start of stop?

If we talking about hand waving the scientific discoveries then let’s stop and send this thread to the ASB where it belongs.

The idea is that even if we accelerate things that means we need have Europe discover the Americas in the early 1400s instead of 1492.

So is it universal discovery advancement or only western inventions? Do the Mayans and Aztec also get warped back or the Spanish (or equivalent) find someone else?

I getting dizzy trying to determine what the author meant.

Therefore @Demon Taka please tell us what you mean. Because the industrial Revolution could be happen 100 years before in a vacuum.
 
Things like apartheid and colonialisme did exist during and afther the industrial revolution. The scramble for africa also happenend during this period. My best bet is that if it didn't benefit the european powers it wasn't provided, things like the WHO exist because of globalisme and infected people can be in your general population in hours also dead people do not have the ability to purchase products.

Theirs no-way someone would provide medical help for Haitie that had basicly overthrown a western nation the best they could hope for is to be moved back into africa and carve out a new state. Same for the zulu's who would probably be branded a terrorist organization the bantu migration hapenend relativly recent and they would be considerd immigrants akin to the barbarians who tried to settle in the roman empire. No way europeans with 1760's mentality would stand for their precense and drive them back up the east coast "to their native bantu lands". (This might not be correct but it would benefit the powers and with 1860 weaponery they could and would do that). People are pretty cruel and find things to justify their actions I think. It definitly doesn't make it right
 
Last edited:
Things like apartheid and colonialisme did exist during and afther the industrial revolution. The scramble for africa also happenend during this period. My best bet is that if it didn't benefit the european powers it wasn't provided, things like the WHO exist because of globalisme and infected people can be in your general population in hours also dead people do not have the ability to purchase products.
It benefited them because for one, it kept them dependent on whites for something as basic as medicine, two, it made whites look/feel good for uplifting "savages" (white man's burden), three, you can't sell goods to a population if said population is dead.
Theirs no-way someone would provide medical help for Haitie that had basicly overthrown a western nation the best they could hope for is to be moved back into africa and carve out a new state.
It would be much easier for the French to reconquer Haiti if they had the benefit of early 20th century-level medicine and knowledge of sanitation to deal with tropical disease. And of course technology like machine guns to maximise their advantage. That said, the Haitians would still have Christian missionaries providing medical care, people bringing in modern medicine, and a few from the small educated class receiving training as doctors overseas.
Same for the zulu's who would probably be branded a terrorist organization the bantu migration hapenend relativly recent and they would be considerd immigrants akin to the barbarians who tried to settle in the roman empire. No way europeans with 1760's mentality would stand for their precense and drive them back up the east coast "to their native bantu lands". (This might not be correct but it would benefit the powers and with 1860 weaponery they could and would do that). People are pretty cruel and find things to justify their actions I think. It definitly doesn't make it right
Bantu-speaking groups have been in South Africa for around 2,000 years, and the idea they hadn't came from European pseudohistory of the 1860s meant to legitimise their colonisation of South Africa. I'm not sure if it's possible to make the Mfecane and other contemporary events much bloodier than OTL since the Zulu and other peoples would still be getting plenty of guns and horses from Europeans. Definitely not possible (or desirable from the POV of Europeans) to conduct a full-scale ethnic cleansing.
 
It benefited them because for one, it kept them dependent on whites for something as basic as medicine
as I said if it benefited them they would sell this would be to mostly farmers, construction workers, miners etc. I doubt the Zulu would be offered much help altough they might illegally sell them weapons during the Mfencane to offer protection for a more obedient population in the mostly black east. Whilst the west multiplied and prospered to ultimatly take the land under the guise of providing peace and dispersing the invader (again not true but that is how europeans would word it).

It would be much easier for the French to reconquer Haiti if they had the benefit of early 20th century-level medicine
A 100 year advantage would put their technology at 1891 a bid to early for penicillin, but we can not forget haiti was seen as a western colony, providing medical aid would be like providing medical aid for ISIS it just would not happen, A weird example would be what if the american civil war was started by the black slaves in the confederate states and they kicked all the caucasians over the state borders (then follow that up with a masacre) keep also in mind that the americans have machine guns by this time I hope it is very clear that they would not recieve any (medical or other) aid and very bad things would happen to them very soon.

Definitely not possible (or desirable from the POV of Europeans) to conduct a full-scale ethnic cleansing.
A emperical attitide with oneside having modern weaponry? Ethnic cleansing would happen all over the place.

Theirs probably peace in the developed world because the underdeveloped world is so easy to take

I fear it would not end well
 
Top