Historically, none of the eponymous Three Kingdoms won the century-long war after the collapse of the Han Dynasty. Shu Han was conquered by Wei in 263, and then Sima Yan overthrew the Wei Emperor in 266 to form the Jin Dynasty. He then invaded and conquered Wu in 280, uniting the land under the short-lived Jin Dynasty.

My question is what if Shu Han (often viewed as the good guys thanks to Romance of the Three Kingdoms and the Dynasty Warriors video game series) had managed to defeat its enemy Wei and unite the land? The most likely POD I can think of is that its ally Wu doesn't betray Guan Yu at Fancheng, allowing Guan Yu's forces to meet up with the Shu Army from Hanzhong and attack the Wei capital, Luoyang, defeating Wei. Shu Han branded itself as a continuation of the Han Dynasty, so I could see Liu Bei restoring the Han Emperor to the throne as a figurehead while performing the actual governance himself.

However, the real question is how long unification under Shu would have lasted. Liu Bei died in 223, and his son, Liu Shan, was infamously incompetent and possibly mentally disabled. An incompetent ruler would have led to instability, as was historically the case with Sima Yan's son Sima Zhong. Not to mention the Sun family might have tried to seize an opportunity to wrest control of the land away from the Liu Family, especially if someone like Sun Hao still became the head of the Sun Clan.

I'm a bit of a true crime junkie. I am particularly obsessed with anything to do with serial killers.

After watching Criminal Minds for most of my late teens, I acquired an interest in the psychology around serial killers or killers in general. Sometimes, I see a famous case on the news and I'm remembering something I learned from that show.

Yes, I know that Criminal Minds changes stuff for TV, but I feel like some of the underlying psychology it utilizes has some basis in reality.

Some of that psychology came from the efforts of the FBI's Behavioral Science Unit, whose members interviewed some of the worst serial killers in American history, namely Edmund Kemper, Ted Bundy, among others.

With that being said, I would like to know how modern criminology would've developed if these individuals never became murderers. Would certain investigative techniques have emerged later or would other offenders and their cases fill in the gaps?

Aside from the standard hypothetical, I also want to ask about an ethical dilemma it brings up.

If studying these crimes eventually helped investigators prevent other murders, does that change how we should evaluate the historical consequences of the original crimes? What I mean to ask is how should we relate the suffering of their victims to the progress that came afterwards? Obviously, nothing can justify horrific murders, but I wonder whether it's possible to acknowledge the contributions these cases made to criminology without inadvertently treating the victims' suffering as a necessary sacrifice for scientific progress.

The last version got derailed by a comment that seemed to criticize a historical oversight rather than engaging with the challenge itself.

Your objective: Create a plausible alternate-history scenario in which Turkey becomes involved in a conventional war against at least one of the following countries:

**Primary eligible countries:**
1. Georgia
2. Armenia
3. Greece
4. Iran
5. Syria (I understand that Turkey fought in Syria in our timeline-the point of the challenge is to create a timeline that leads to a war where Turkey fights MULTIPLE countries ALONGSIDE Syria and Iraq)
6. Iraq (See clarification regarding Syria)
7. Any country ending in “-stan,” including Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Kyrgyzstan, Afghanistan, and Pakistan (They do not have to share a land border with Turkey).

**Rules:**

**Historical timeframe:** The point of divergence must occur between 1991 and 2006, while complying with the subreddit’s 20-year rule.

**No nuclear weapons:** Conventional warfare only.

**Historical plausibility:** Explain what political, diplomatic, territorial, or military developments cause the war.

**Multiple belligerents permitted:** Turkey may fight one country or several countries simultaneously.

**Consequences:** Feel free to explore how the war develops and what its outcome means for the surrounding region.

**Timeframe**: In light of the sub’s rules against scenarios that take place within the last 20 years, your scenario has to happen between the years 1991 (The year the USSR fell) and 2006 (2006 is the cutoff point).

The challenge is to construct a plausible chain of events leading to war, not simply to declare that two countries suddenly start fighting.

Is Yuan Shikai's empire something that would, if it had lasted, reflect a continuation of the traditional Chinese Imperial system, or would it be considered a completely separate institution?

instead of tsar nicholas creating the duma as a hollow institution it had actual teeth and was able to make the tsar and the romanovs constitutional monarchs.

so what if the prvisional governemnt suceeded in empowering the duma and implementing the reforms?

during the treaty of sevres the empire or the eventual ussr instead of supporting attaturk went for weat armenia and incoperated it into the empire or armenian ssr?

Let's say Hans Oster, Helmuth James von Moltke, Erich Weinert, Walther von Seydlitz, Friedrich Olbricht, Friedrich Fromm, Rudolf von Gersdorff and Henning von Tresckow successfully organize a resistance movement with a guerrilla army powerful enough to challenge the Nazi regime, beginning in November 1941.

What would they need to do to topple the government by June 1943?

What would have happened if Boris Yeltsin had actually dissolved the State Duma and postponed the 1996 election by two years? Would Putin still be put in power? Would a Communist (Zyuganov most likely) have then won the next election, or would have Yeltsin banned the Communist party? I am reading a great books about the oligarchs in Russia and was shocked how close this was to happening. Thanks!

I just listened to a podcast with the same title and I found it very interesting. I’d like to know your thoughts on that.

Inspired by this post on a different sub.

The objective is to bring about a series of events where the premise of the OP's post happens.

What would need to happen for a timeline where Turkey doesn’t join NATO to be possible?

What if the Eastern Roman Empire had fallen earlier, and the Vatican state were located today at the Hagia Sophia basilica in Istanbul?

Although I understand that these two scenarios are very different from one another, it cannot be denied that a Persian victory over Greece and a Carthaginian triumph over Rome could have profoundly reshaped not only the Western world but the entire globe.

I would like to ask how the world's cultures might have developed if either of these scenarios had occurred.

Abraham Lincoln replaced his VP Hannibal Hamlin with Andrew Johnson, a Southern Democrat, for his second term. This decision would prove disastrous for Civil Rights, as Lincoln was assassinated and Johnson allowed the former Confederates to once again hold political office (which Lincoln forbade), leading to the passage of the infamous Jim Crow Laws. Civil Rights were set back by a century because of this, and racial injustices persist to this day despite improvements.

But what if Lincoln had kept Hannibal Hamlin? Unlike Johnson, Hamlin was a New England Republican who aligned more closely with the Radical Republicans. He would have taken a harsher stance on the South and made it much harder for the South to persecute the freedmen. Could this have led to a better outcome for the Civil Rights movement?

Let's assume that by some miracle Germany and Italy are defeated in 1942. This would mean Japan would have the Allies' undivided attention 3 years earlier.

What would this mean for Japan? Would the USSR invade Manchuria this time? Would the extra US manpower available due to early Nazi defeat accelerate Allied victory? Would the atom bombs still be dropped, either to prevent Soviet invasion or to demand unconditional surrender?

How much better would life have been in Florida the past three decades if there were only Democrat governors? How would the cost of living be? Would recreational cannabis have passed 10-20 years ago? What about rent would it be a lot cheaper with rent caps in place? Would there be better job protections like no company could test for cannabis, and more benefits like a statewide PTO program guaranteeing every person who holds a job some number of paid days off, say 10 per year regardless of what company they work for? In addition to benefits and positives for Florida residents, what downsides, if any, would there have been as a result of three decades of Democratic rule?

So, in this hypothetical, lets say all the crusades were successful, every one of them resulted in favourable outcome for the Europeans, be it land grab etc.

How much would this change the relations between Mongols and Europeans? Would they become closer or would Mongol Empire become the new crusading target?

Would this also change Mongolian expansion and perception of Europe as well, would Mongolia seek alliance with Islamic kingdoms/empires instead?

OTL Context:

The 120 Days of Sodom, or the School of Libertinage^\a]) (French: Les 120 Journées de Sodome ou l'école du libertinage) is an unfinished novel by the French writer and nobleman Donatien Alphonse François, Marquis de Sade, written in 1785 and published in 1904 after its manuscript was rediscovered. Existing texts derive from an incomplete manuscript discovered after the storming of the Bastille in 1789. The novel consists of an introduction and four parts along with notes, supplements and addenda. Sade completed the introduction and first part in draft form. Parts Two to Four mainly consist of detailed notes. Sade did not revise and correct the draft he had completed and therefore there are some errors and inconsistencies.

Suppose that in a parallel universe, the manuscript is NEVER rediscovered and The 120 Days of Sodom is never published, instead becoming lost literature.

How does this affect the history of French literature, if at all?

What if, out of gratitude for France's assistance in the American Revolutionary War and/or a desire to increase its power in Europe, the United States had sent armies to Europe to aid Napoleon in his wars? Would it have made any difference? How would it impact America's relations with Europe?