What is Before 1900's "Sealion"?

Most "India industrializes" scenarios are quite implausible. India's large coal deposits are located in remote areas only accessible by technology beyond the industrial age. People also tend to turn a blind eye to the role of textile mills in the British Industrial Revolution - that's a plausible way India could have become a fairly industrial country.
 
Various nations "pulling a Meiji" - There were very specific conditions in place that allowed Japan to rapidly industrialize, and unfortunately not very many other nations had them. With the right POD, of course, it would be possible to put those conditions into place, but many people only seem to be interested in a POD in the 1800s, after it's too late for many areas.

It's probably not right to call all of the above outright ASB... but then I am very hesitant to call anything ASB short of divine or extraterrestrial intervention. It would just be a very uphill battle to properly explain and plausibly justify them in any TL.

Seriously, Greek/Byzantine Meiji after its Independence. Why the hell has no one done this?!

Also great point about ASB. People just scream ASB at anything now a days, and basically just stab everyone's fun in the face. Considering the nature of the ASB forum (I have looked at it occasionally), simply having an unlikely scenario that is well explained IS. NOT. ASB.

Edit: Just made a proper ranting thread here: https://www.alternatehistory.com/forum/threads/immediate-asb-callers.416377/#post-14777030
 
Last edited:
Especially without British or French intervention; there's no way the Confederacy on its own will survive the Union onslaught.

In all fairness any direct European Intervention in the US Civil War.
It would have required someone (ie. the Union Government) to do something extraordinarily stupid!

(Although books have been published with exactly that, without overt provocation no other nation had any reason to get involved?).
 
In all fairness any direct European Intervention in the US Civil War.
It would have required someone (ie. the Union Government) to do something extraordinarily stupid!

(Although books have been published with exactly that, without overt provocation no other nation had any reason to get involved?).

It nearly happened just after the war started. With a few events going differently the Trent Affair might have had London and Paris sending emissaries to Richmond.
 

Saphroneth

Banned
It nearly happened just after the war started. With a few events going differently the Trent Affair might have had London and Paris sending emissaries to Richmond.
With a few events going differently (specifically, one, which is if Lincoln had trusted his own judgement on Dec 26 1861) the Trent Affair might have had London sending ironclads to New York.
 
Most "India industrializes" scenarios are quite implausible. India's large coal deposits are located in remote areas only accessible by technology beyond the industrial age. People also tend to turn a blind eye to the role of textile mills in the British Industrial Revolution - that's a plausible way India could have become a fairly industrial country.
I checked on Indian coal mining history and apparently there is a large coalfield in Bengal exploited since 1774. Exploitation was slow due to lack of demand and interest from the British, but that might not be the case in an Indian India.
 
I checked on Indian coal mining history and apparently there is a large coalfield in Bengal exploited since 1774. Exploitation was slow due to lack of demand and interest from the British, but that might not be the case in an Indian India.

Hmm, I'll need to do some research on that.

Regardless, a few large coal fields accessible by pre-industrial technology are still pebbles in comparison to the coal of, say, Britain, and I'd say India is still far more likely to industrialize through water mills. Though, this admittedly shows it's far from Sealion levels of implausiblility.
 
Especially without British or French intervention; there's no way the Confederacy on its own will survive the Union onslaught.

I would say it is close but not quite that. An exhaustion scenario may barely be possible. I would say 1:1000 or so. The CSA taking DC definitely is. In fact the CSA taking (as opposed to raiding) any US city of any real importance.
 
Charles Martel losing the Battle of Tours, leading to the Umayyads taking all of France (not common here, but as a common AH assumption like "if the Germans won Sealion we'd be speaking German" it's comparable)

I can't quite agree here, because the Umayyads had already pulled off the improbable with their invasion of Spain (if not other invasions). If it had not actually happened, I don't think many of us would believe that they could cross the Mediterranean and conquer the peninsula.

It is hard for them to conquer France, to be sure, but I think it is in the realm of possibility, although probably would have occurred in stages, and not as quickly as the conquest of Spain.
 

Saphroneth

Banned
The thing about Sealion is that it's at one and the same time extremely popular (especially among people not from the site) and extremely, amazingly unlikely.

Not many things in Pre 1900 fulfil both criteria. Confederate Victory is common, but is not sufficiently unlikely - if the US had a large formed army before the Civil War and the CSA did not, that would be one thing, but both sides were starting from the same comparison point. (If the Germans had repeatedly secured a foothold on English soil and the Soviets had a battlefleet six times larger than the Royal Navy, we would not consider Sealion nigh impossible.)
 
I can't quite agree here, because the Umayyads had already pulled off the improbable with their invasion of Spain (if not other invasions). If it had not actually happened, I don't think many of us would believe that they could cross the Mediterranean and conquer the peninsula.

It is hard for them to conquer France, to be sure, but I think it is in the realm of possibility, although probably would have occurred in stages, and not as quickly as the conquest of Spain.

I think it's not Charles Martel losing Tours alone that is the problem, but "We would all be Muslims speaking Arabic!" Or?
 
Yes, it's far more likely Christianity would've remained common, just like in al-Andalus

Honestly the major changes of a lost Battle of Tours would be felt more in Europe's political makeup than in its religious one. The Arabic empire was already at its limits at the time and the raids into France were just that, raids. There was never any real threat of conquest at the time, though a loss at Tours could have emboldened Al-Andalus once it broke away from the main Caliphate. However, the main repercussions would be that no Frankish victory at Tours means that Charles Martel either dies on the battlefield or is reduced to just a footnote in history. The Merovingian pseudo-Shogunate continues, at least for a time, and Charlemagne is never born.
 
Charles Martel losing the Battle of Tours, leading to the Umayyads taking all of France (not common here, but as a common AH assumption like "if the Germans won Sealion we'd be speaking German" it's comparable)

It's entirely possible that the Caliphate conquers southern France. After all, they came pretty close to doing so IOTL.
 
Top