If Korean-Japanese relations stayed better (or Korea remaining part of Japan, I suppose), I think Busan, with its dependence on Japanese trade, would've been able to close the gap with Seoul at least a little bit. Maybe a Japan-Korea Chunnel would've given an economic and population boost to the region.
What about Carthage? If they won the Punic Wars, could they have usurped Rome as the major city of the central Mediterranean?
Not just them, I think a lot of Central European, Eastern European and Balkan cities would be much larger with a surviving Habsburg Monarchy. I could easily see Zagreb, Bratislava, and Brno each reaching 1,000,000 inhabitants and cities like Ljubljana, Sarajevo, and Cluj-Napoca also become larger. Also if it remains the primary port of the monarchy Rijeka would probably be much larger than it is now.
If they won the Punic Wars it wouldn't be so much a "usurpation" as them defending their title. Prior to the first Punic War they were almost certainly the most important city west of the Nile Delta.
Last edited:
This would cause so much butterflies that even Mediterranean would be unrecognsible. It pretty much depends would Carthage survive and what would beits influence.
History Learner
Banned
I'll add a few.
In 1850s, the U.S. Government conducted a series of land surveys in order to find the best route for a Trans-Continental railway to the Pacific, and ultimately found the southern most proposed line was the best. The Gadsden Purchase was done in order to secure the territory needed to build it, but then the increasing sectional disputes between the North and the South killed it the project until the 1870s. Even then, the Central Pacific monopoly managed to screw it over. Had it been built, as was originally intended, it would've roughly followed the route of what IOTL became the Butterfield Overland Trail:
The main difference would be, instead of connecting up towards San Francisco, it would've directly terminated in San Diego (Another spur would, most likely, later connect it to San Francisco). Such an advantageous position, in terms of being an excellent port and a terminus for the first Trans-Continental Railroad would've turned San Diego into the premier city and port on the West Coast. As was noted IOTL by the opponents of the 1870s effort:
So basically San Diego ends up as the city in California, with Los Angeles never coming into being as a major city and San Francisco slowly dying off in the 19th Century before the earthquake in 1906 finishes it off.
Shifting back east with this, the most likely Eastern origin point for the railroad is Memphis, due to the shorter route it offers and the fact there was already some existing track in the region to build from. Such would, between the rail traffic and Mississippi River trade, make Memphis the main city along the river and definitely so in Tennessee. Depending on when the Civil War gets fought if it's not prevented, such might make Tennessee Unionist enough to prevent its secession, although I personally doubt such given how West Tennessee was politically at the time.
Some more, either in this proposed ATL or on their own:
Richmond, Virginia - In the event of no Civil War, or at least Virginia not getting as smashed by it, Richmond would definitely be a greater city without having to be rebuilt and the continued status of West Virginia in the Commonwealth would likely prove a boon to industrialization, as the resources of the aforementioned state would be flowing to Richmond.
Big Stone Gap, Virginia - Change the Civil War (Averted or quicker ending) or remove Alexander Arthur, and such would've made available the capital needed to carry out the industrialization plans for the town. Such would've nerfed Middlesboro in Kentucky and perhaps Kingsport, Tennessee later on as Eastman Kodak might be more interested in developing its plant in the growing BSG. I personally don't think it could've become a Pittsburgh as was extolled, but a city of 50-80,000 with a strong industrial basis certainly seems possible. Such would've also kept the nearby coal towns relevant and large, first as sources of coal for iron/steel production, and then as suburbs as the town became a city. Add in UVA deciding to locate their affiliate campus here instead of Wise, and you'd definitely have the Virginian version of Johnson City, but with the industry of Kingsport thrown in.
Middlesboro, Kentucky - As kind of a reverse of the above, avert the 1890 Fire and have Barings not make such bad investments in Argentina, and Middlesboro could end up bigger than it did. If capital keeps flowing in, the railroad tunnel can be built and thus the city could become an important hub between Knoxville and Lexington, but the plans to turn it into a major industrial site were always going to fall short due to the poor quality of materials in the area. Overall, it could probably reach a size of 20-30,000.
Fort Blackmore, Virginia - I've never been able to confirm such, but a High School history teacher of mine stated that Eastman Kodak nearly built what became their Kingsport Plant in or near this tiny hamlet, but were stopped by some of the local tobacco growers. Had they failed, Fort Blackmore probably could've grown into a city of 30,000-40,000.
Johnson City, Tennessee - If you can somehow avert the Panic of 1893, Johnson City would continue to grow in size, and might be able to turn itself into a second Knoxville.
Muscle Shoals, Alabama - I'll let the town itself explain what nearly happened:
So kill off Norris, and you might be able to get a second Birmingham.
Mobile, Alabama - After the Civil War, trade began to shift away from the Mississippi and New Orleans lost some of its prominence in this regard. Had it got hit by a sufficiently strong Hurricane sometime in the 1870s-1890s, it's possible Mobile could've replaced it as the premier port on the Gulf, given its central location and proximity to the iron production sites at Birmingham.
Birmingham, Alabama - Avert the Civil War or have it won by the South, and Birmingham would've turned into every bit the rival of Pittsburgh that it was intended to be. Due to unfair Pro-Pittsburgh pricing rates forced into usage, Birmingham's ability sell was deeply undermined, and this was further compounded by the lack of sufficient regional capital to draw on due to the effects of the Civil War. The Iron and Steel Industry of the Birmingham, Alabama, District by Langdon White (Economic Geography, Vol. 4, No. 4 (Oct., 1928), pp. 349-365) outlines the areas Birmingham would've easily been able to out-compete Pittsburgh in at the minimum:
Chicago, Illinois - Yes, I know it was already great, but it certainly could've been greater, had it successfully managed to become the center of American automobile production.
Duluth, Minnesota - U.S. Steel apparently narrowly chose expanding production in Pittsburgh over Duluth in 1911, a move which, if reversed, certainly would've brought more development.
Topeka, Kansas - Had it got the international airport over Kansas City, it could've went the Atlanta route of development.
Portland, Oregon - In the 1960s they tried to build a stadium to attract the Raiders and made a bid for the 1968 Olympics, but both ended up failing. Had they not, it would've obviously been a boon for the city.
In 1850s, the U.S. Government conducted a series of land surveys in order to find the best route for a Trans-Continental railway to the Pacific, and ultimately found the southern most proposed line was the best. The Gadsden Purchase was done in order to secure the territory needed to build it, but then the increasing sectional disputes between the North and the South killed it the project until the 1870s. Even then, the Central Pacific monopoly managed to screw it over. Had it been built, as was originally intended, it would've roughly followed the route of what IOTL became the Butterfield Overland Trail:
The main difference would be, instead of connecting up towards San Francisco, it would've directly terminated in San Diego (Another spur would, most likely, later connect it to San Francisco). Such an advantageous position, in terms of being an excellent port and a terminus for the first Trans-Continental Railroad would've turned San Diego into the premier city and port on the West Coast. As was noted IOTL by the opponents of the 1870s effort:
So basically San Diego ends up as the city in California, with Los Angeles never coming into being as a major city and San Francisco slowly dying off in the 19th Century before the earthquake in 1906 finishes it off.
Shifting back east with this, the most likely Eastern origin point for the railroad is Memphis, due to the shorter route it offers and the fact there was already some existing track in the region to build from. Such would, between the rail traffic and Mississippi River trade, make Memphis the main city along the river and definitely so in Tennessee. Depending on when the Civil War gets fought if it's not prevented, such might make Tennessee Unionist enough to prevent its secession, although I personally doubt such given how West Tennessee was politically at the time.
Some more, either in this proposed ATL or on their own:
Richmond, Virginia - In the event of no Civil War, or at least Virginia not getting as smashed by it, Richmond would definitely be a greater city without having to be rebuilt and the continued status of West Virginia in the Commonwealth would likely prove a boon to industrialization, as the resources of the aforementioned state would be flowing to Richmond.
Big Stone Gap, Virginia - Change the Civil War (Averted or quicker ending) or remove Alexander Arthur, and such would've made available the capital needed to carry out the industrialization plans for the town. Such would've nerfed Middlesboro in Kentucky and perhaps Kingsport, Tennessee later on as Eastman Kodak might be more interested in developing its plant in the growing BSG. I personally don't think it could've become a Pittsburgh as was extolled, but a city of 50-80,000 with a strong industrial basis certainly seems possible. Such would've also kept the nearby coal towns relevant and large, first as sources of coal for iron/steel production, and then as suburbs as the town became a city. Add in UVA deciding to locate their affiliate campus here instead of Wise, and you'd definitely have the Virginian version of Johnson City, but with the industry of Kingsport thrown in.
Middlesboro, Kentucky - As kind of a reverse of the above, avert the 1890 Fire and have Barings not make such bad investments in Argentina, and Middlesboro could end up bigger than it did. If capital keeps flowing in, the railroad tunnel can be built and thus the city could become an important hub between Knoxville and Lexington, but the plans to turn it into a major industrial site were always going to fall short due to the poor quality of materials in the area. Overall, it could probably reach a size of 20-30,000.
Fort Blackmore, Virginia - I've never been able to confirm such, but a High School history teacher of mine stated that Eastman Kodak nearly built what became their Kingsport Plant in or near this tiny hamlet, but were stopped by some of the local tobacco growers. Had they failed, Fort Blackmore probably could've grown into a city of 30,000-40,000.
Johnson City, Tennessee - If you can somehow avert the Panic of 1893, Johnson City would continue to grow in size, and might be able to turn itself into a second Knoxville.
Muscle Shoals, Alabama - I'll let the town itself explain what nearly happened:
So kill off Norris, and you might be able to get a second Birmingham.
Mobile, Alabama - After the Civil War, trade began to shift away from the Mississippi and New Orleans lost some of its prominence in this regard. Had it got hit by a sufficiently strong Hurricane sometime in the 1870s-1890s, it's possible Mobile could've replaced it as the premier port on the Gulf, given its central location and proximity to the iron production sites at Birmingham.
Birmingham, Alabama - Avert the Civil War or have it won by the South, and Birmingham would've turned into every bit the rival of Pittsburgh that it was intended to be. Due to unfair Pro-Pittsburgh pricing rates forced into usage, Birmingham's ability sell was deeply undermined, and this was further compounded by the lack of sufficient regional capital to draw on due to the effects of the Civil War. The Iron and Steel Industry of the Birmingham, Alabama, District by Langdon White (Economic Geography, Vol. 4, No. 4 (Oct., 1928), pp. 349-365) outlines the areas Birmingham would've easily been able to out-compete Pittsburgh in at the minimum:
Chicago, Illinois - Yes, I know it was already great, but it certainly could've been greater, had it successfully managed to become the center of American automobile production.
Duluth, Minnesota - U.S. Steel apparently narrowly chose expanding production in Pittsburgh over Duluth in 1911, a move which, if reversed, certainly would've brought more development.
Topeka, Kansas - Had it got the international airport over Kansas City, it could've went the Atlanta route of development.
Portland, Oregon - In the 1960s they tried to build a stadium to attract the Raiders and made a bid for the 1968 Olympics, but both ended up failing. Had they not, it would've obviously been a boon for the city.
Last edited:
Vilnius used to be the third largest city in Eastern Europe, larger than such cities like Kiev and Riga, until somewhere around the mid 19th century.
If history didn't have a some sort of grudge against it (just from the 17th century onward: the Deluge, the Plague of 1709, Russian annexation, all the shit that happened in the 20th century, the Holocaust and Polish repatriations, etc...), Vilnius would definitely be a multi-million city by now.
If history didn't have a some sort of grudge against it (just from the 17th century onward: the Deluge, the Plague of 1709, Russian annexation, all the shit that happened in the 20th century, the Holocaust and Polish repatriations, etc...), Vilnius would definitely be a multi-million city by now.
What kind of advantages did or could Vilnius have to be attractive to settlers? Is there any natural resource there, which could boost the industrialisation?
It was (and still is, in some regard) a major trade and transport hub, right in between the West and Russia. That's why it was the place where Russia's first civilian railroad was built, as an example.
Carthage can still be among the greatest cities of the world (or at least the Mediterranean) even after it loses the Punic Wars.
Antioch in Syria would be a much more important city in a no-Islam TL.
Cherchell in Algeria was once of the most important cities in Roman Africa and easily could be much more important.
If the Romans conquered all of modern Morocco, then Volubilis would likewise become a very important center of the region and could easily stay that way until today.
Similar story with Hippo Regius.
I also like the idea of some sort of nationalism in Egypt and Syria leading to the reconstruction of ancient cities like Nineveh and Memphis (and lest we forget, Iraq and Babylon, looking at Saddam Hussein), possibly even designating them as capitals. Yes, I know Nineveh is just on the other side of Mosul and Mosul is plenty significant, but still.
I think the problem with Ceuta is that it has limited room to grow compared to Tangiers thanks to the rugged terrain. Also, Kano already is a regional center, although it would be even more important via either Sokoto or a post-colonial Northern Nigeria state. Berenice is nowadays Benghazi, which is plenty important as it is.
The easiest way for any African city to become much more important in the modern age with a POD in the past 150 years is have a different Scramble for Africa and thus different colonisation and decolonisation. A different set of lines on the map means a different set of African countries means a different set of capital cities.
Antioch in Syria would be a much more important city in a no-Islam TL.
Cherchell in Algeria was once of the most important cities in Roman Africa and easily could be much more important.
If the Romans conquered all of modern Morocco, then Volubilis would likewise become a very important center of the region and could easily stay that way until today.
Similar story with Hippo Regius.
I also like the idea of some sort of nationalism in Egypt and Syria leading to the reconstruction of ancient cities like Nineveh and Memphis (and lest we forget, Iraq and Babylon, looking at Saddam Hussein), possibly even designating them as capitals. Yes, I know Nineveh is just on the other side of Mosul and Mosul is plenty significant, but still.
I think the problem with Ceuta is that it has limited room to grow compared to Tangiers thanks to the rugged terrain. Also, Kano already is a regional center, although it would be even more important via either Sokoto or a post-colonial Northern Nigeria state. Berenice is nowadays Benghazi, which is plenty important as it is.
The easiest way for any African city to become much more important in the modern age with a POD in the past 150 years is have a different Scramble for Africa and thus different colonisation and decolonisation. A different set of lines on the map means a different set of African countries means a different set of capital cities.
Corinth was pretty important actually. Commercially they were second only to Athens, and they colonized to the West extensively. Corinthian prominence was later obscured by Athens and Sparta, partly because of internal strife in Corinth itself (arguably a consequence of economic success). I also guess that Corinth lacked a largish agricultural hinterland like the ones that fed other major Hellenic poleis.
Carthage is quite big today, even if just as a part of Greater Tunis Metropolitan Area. Several Tunisian government offices are actually there.
This is going off the other thread about it the Erie Canal were ever built. These are all major cities now on the Mississippi River, of course. That's the theme here. If the interior of the continent were perhaps settled earlier by the King of France or in more numbers by the King of Spain, and/or if the Erie Canal were never built, these would be major hubs for agricultural products, metals, minerals, lumber, and so on to be transited down the Mississippi.
Minneapolis-Saint Paul, Minnesota:
The end of continuous northward navigation from the Gulf of Mexico is at St Anthony Falls in downtown Minneapolis. Before the dam was built downriver between Minneapolis and St Paul, there were rapids between the two cities which effectively made St Paul the northern terminus of the river way.
From a geostrategic standpoint, I have long thought that the Twin Cities would have been more successful than they are today if they were settled a few centuries earlier. Many of their geographic advantages would have been leveraged to maximum advantage in a world with a pre-1800 tech level, but even more so with a pre-1500s tech level.
Trackless prairie to the West, endless forest to the North, long winters, warm summers with bountiful harvests, access to good metal ores near by and to the North, close to the Great Lakes, and connected to the interior waterway network of North America in a dominant position. Imagine the logistical difficulty of attacking such a place if you are in charge of a foreign army and have no interstates, planes, and motored vehicles. Good luck. It would be similar to an attempt to take Moscow, I think. The cities are actually very geographically similar in many respects.
I know that Seward gave a speech in the 1870s in St Paul where he announced that he believed it was the destiny of that city to be the capital of an empire that straddled North America, after Canada and Mexico were annexed to the United States. One wonders if he said this to many cities he visited, though.
Saint Louis, Missouri:
The Ohio, Missouri, and Illinois rivers all feed into the Mississippi near St Louis. An earlier start or no competition from the Erie Canal would have made St Louis a much bigger city than it is. Even sixty years ago, it was believed that St Louis might eclipse Chicago one day.
New Orleans, Louisiana:
At the mouth of said river and one of the US's major ports still today. It too has declined significantly in its population, like St Louis did. People used to speak of New Orleans as being destined to be a mega city as well. Saint Louis and New Orleans actually have a lot in common. Both were once thought to be future global cities, both declined and lost population instead.
Minneapolis-Saint Paul, Minnesota:
The end of continuous northward navigation from the Gulf of Mexico is at St Anthony Falls in downtown Minneapolis. Before the dam was built downriver between Minneapolis and St Paul, there were rapids between the two cities which effectively made St Paul the northern terminus of the river way.
From a geostrategic standpoint, I have long thought that the Twin Cities would have been more successful than they are today if they were settled a few centuries earlier. Many of their geographic advantages would have been leveraged to maximum advantage in a world with a pre-1800 tech level, but even more so with a pre-1500s tech level.
Trackless prairie to the West, endless forest to the North, long winters, warm summers with bountiful harvests, access to good metal ores near by and to the North, close to the Great Lakes, and connected to the interior waterway network of North America in a dominant position. Imagine the logistical difficulty of attacking such a place if you are in charge of a foreign army and have no interstates, planes, and motored vehicles. Good luck. It would be similar to an attempt to take Moscow, I think. The cities are actually very geographically similar in many respects.
I know that Seward gave a speech in the 1870s in St Paul where he announced that he believed it was the destiny of that city to be the capital of an empire that straddled North America, after Canada and Mexico were annexed to the United States. One wonders if he said this to many cities he visited, though.
Saint Louis, Missouri:
The Ohio, Missouri, and Illinois rivers all feed into the Mississippi near St Louis. An earlier start or no competition from the Erie Canal would have made St Louis a much bigger city than it is. Even sixty years ago, it was believed that St Louis might eclipse Chicago one day.
New Orleans, Louisiana:
At the mouth of said river and one of the US's major ports still today. It too has declined significantly in its population, like St Louis did. People used to speak of New Orleans as being destined to be a mega city as well. Saint Louis and New Orleans actually have a lot in common. Both were once thought to be future global cities, both declined and lost population instead.
Last edited:
AFAIK Basra and Muscat were always much more important than Bandar Abbas or any prior settlement, even though it clearly had the potential to be much bigger than both due to its strategic location.
Tiny Prince Rupert is the deepest ice free natural harbour in North America, connect it to one of Canada's major rail ways earlier (OTL it was connected to the CNR in 1922) and it can become a competitor to Vancouver.
Cam Ranh is situated on Cam Ranh Bay, and had the USA retained basing rights there after some sort of negotiated settlement to the Vietnam War I imagine it could become a popular destination for personnel on leave.
Cam Ranh is situated on Cam Ranh Bay, and had the USA retained basing rights there after some sort of negotiated settlement to the Vietnam War I imagine it could become a popular destination for personnel on leave.
If the Federal Republic of Central America had stated together, then it would've probably picked a new capital than Guatemala City. I like the plan of later Central American union attempts/proposals to place it in the small town of Amapala, which is on an island in the Gulf of Fonseca right at the center of Central America. Now, an island capital is an odd choice, transportation is certainly difficult, and the island isn't too big, which limits growth, but it would certainly mean the area would have a far larger population than today, not to mention importance. They could also always relocate it to another nearby city like Nacaome, Choluteca, or maybe Chinandega in Nicaragua, all of which have the same strategic advantage a centrally located capital in Central America brings (and it seems proposals for Central American unions often met in those cities for that reason, hence why I'm suggesting them).
Ethiopia also has a bunch of cities which could've been much more important, but the historically low urbanisation in the country prevented them from taking off. An Ethiopia which is more developed early might have cities like Debre Berhan or Ankober be much larger or even the capital.
I'll let this post here speak on Kilwa in modern Tanzania.
Yeah, but it's a mere suburb compared to Tunis when you'd think it would be the other way around and easily could be. Although I suppose going by what I said regarding Syria and Nineveh, Egypt and Memphis (or Thebes, etc.), or Iraq and Babylon, that a Tunisian government could always do more with Carthage and designate it as the official capital, even if for all intents and purposes it's still a suburb of Tunis, like New Delhi to Delhi.
Ethiopia also has a bunch of cities which could've been much more important, but the historically low urbanisation in the country prevented them from taking off. An Ethiopia which is more developed early might have cities like Debre Berhan or Ankober be much larger or even the capital.
I'll let this post here speak on Kilwa in modern Tanzania.
Yeah, but it's a mere suburb compared to Tunis when you'd think it would be the other way around and easily could be. Although I suppose going by what I said regarding Syria and Nineveh, Egypt and Memphis (or Thebes, etc.), or Iraq and Babylon, that a Tunisian government could always do more with Carthage and designate it as the official capital, even if for all intents and purposes it's still a suburb of Tunis, like New Delhi to Delhi.
Antioch was still the most important city in Syria all the way until after WW1. Damascus was an administrative center and little more as far as the Ottomans were concerned.
And on that note, Beirut. For reasons that I hope are obvious.