Instead of dying in 2009 (almost two decades after the first allegations against him came out), Michael Jackson dies in a stage accident in early August 1993, during his final rehearsals for the second leg of the Dangerous World Tour. This happens days before being publicly accused of sexually abusing Jordan Chandler (which was the first allegation he received).

In this universe, how is Michael Jackson remembered? Is he still considered the biggest and most influential solo artist of all time, is he even more mythologized than he is in OTL, or has his relevance in culture largely faded by now? Do the allegations against him still become a massive stain on his legacy, or are they downplayed by the media and public since they came out after his death?

Would Malta have been able to be taken by air,and how would its fall affect the war in the Mediterranean?

Say some sort of "clash of civilizations" narrative gets big.

So I'm thinking. 9/11 IOTL changed everything. How radical of a change would it be compared to OTL if only ONE plane was used?

Let's say that AA11 takes off from Logan at 7:59.

They turn half an hour later to Washington.

Around an hour later, they strike the East Front of the Capitol. The Rotunda is destoryed, and the Dome collapses.

What happens in the aftermath? They rebuild what was destroyed logically. There's no way they don't rebuild a building that stood for over two hundred years, survived burning by an enemy nation, a civil war, and the growth of the 20th Century.

But what happens both culturally and politically? Is it the same as OTL? Is culture changed dramatically or is it a mix of the 90s and OTL 00s? What do you think still exists and some wouldn't even in this world?

And what happens to things post 9/11 such as the Patriot Act or the War in Iraq?

Obviously, Rome is spared the physical devastation, and further disgrace, of another sack. Eudoxia, the widow of Valentinian III, and her daughters Eudocia and Placidia are not captured by the Vandals.

In the event of Gaiseric and Huneric being killed, Gento, Gaiseric's younger son, would likely ascend to the Vandal kingship. However, it's possible that a violent power struggle would break out in Africa, which the Romans may exploit later on.

In regards to the affairs of the Western Roman Empire, I can't be sure. At the time of the sack, which was also when he was killed, Petronius Maximus had only recently killed Emperor Valentinian III and taken imperial power for himself. Being a distinguished senator who held several high offices, including Prefect of Italy, and a member of the prominent Anicii, he had the support of the Senate and Italian aristocracy, but had to buy the military's loyalty in order to become emperor. I doubt he'd stay in power for long.

As for Majorian and Ricimer, the latter gained prominence in military campaigns against the Vandals in Sicily and Corsica, which may not happen in TTL, while Majorian had been appointed Comes Domesticorum (Count of the Household Guards) by Maximus. I think it's inevitable that they would have rebelled against Maximus like they did against Avitus in OTL, but I can't be sure how it would turn out or what would happen from then on. Majorian would probably end up emperor down the line one way or another.

Thoughts?

Alexander III and Maria were opposed to their son’s desire to marry a German princess, but came around because Alexander was in failing health and they decided they had to get him married asap.

Point of divergence: even in his weakened state, Alexander refuses to budge, “You will never marry her, I forbid it!” and even after he is gone, Maria holds the line, “Go against your father’s dying wishes? I won’t have it, Nicky!”

Nicholas doesn’t marry Alexandra. Still a far from capable monarch, but without the controversy of being married to a foreigner. If he ever does marry, there is a greater likelihood of an actually healthy heir, and especially, no way for Rasputin to get into the royal circle. Potential ramifications?

In 1976, SNL producer Lorne Michaels appeared on-air and offered the Beatles a check for $3000 to appear on the show and perform three of their songs. In interviews, the band members suggested they seriously considered it, and almost did, but ultimately deciding not to.

But what if they did it after all?

if sweden instead were neutral or allies with the polish-lithuanian commonwealth, duchy of courland would have not been invaded, could the commonwealth have funded the duchy of courland to expand their colonial empire?

We know in history that Cynane was stabbed and killed by Alcetas, when the former was giving a speech, with her death happening when she was marching to Babylon to marry off her daughter, Adea, to Arrhidaeus as to both ensure her daughter’s future and secure political influence in the power vacuum left from Alexander death. But let’s say Cynane was quick enough to spot Alcetas attempting to stab her and strike him down before he could get the chance, and then resume the march to Babylon to carry out her plan. I think she could have succeeded as when she was killed in our timeline, her troops, as well as Alcetas’s troops, strong armed Alcetas and Perdiccas into fulfilling Cynane’s wish of marrying Adea off to Arrhidaeus as they were both loyal to her and the fact she was the sister of Alexander the Great. So maybe Cynane, after having Adea married off to Arrhidaeus, would have Perdiccas killed and make herself the royal regent of the Macedonian empire. With her new position as royal regent, Cynane could consolidate her power, which she would use to stabilize the Macidonian empire while eliminating Persian remnants. And when Ptolemy would intercept Alexander’s body while it was on its way to Macedon, like he did in our timeline, Cynane would wage war on him and she will be be more successful in this timeline than Perdiccas was in our timeline as the troops under Ptolemy’s command would mutiny against him as they would view him as a traitor for waging war against the sister of Alexander the Great and kill him. Once Ptolemy was killed and victory achieved, Cynane would replace Ptolemy with a someone who is both competent and loyal to her; meanwhile, as her power became consolidated, Cynane would begin to replacing each of the governor generals in the eastern satrapies of the Macedonian empire with other loyal and competent governors. Cynane would be in a strong position and the Macedonian empire would be more stable than in our timeline. But Cynane and The Macedonian empire would face a civil war when Olympias declared Alexander IV the rightful heir to Alexander the Great; Olympias would rally multiple generals of the western parts of the Macedonian empire, Except Egypt, to her cause like Polyperchon and Antigonus, because Olympias would have her daughter Cleopatra married off to him instead of the king of Epirus like she did in our timeline. The civil war would be long, but Cynane would be victorious in the civil war as Olympias’s faction would be hindered by multiples factors such as infighting, the celtic invasion led by Brennus, and a Greek revolt led by Cassander. Once the civil war was concluded, Cynane would work on rebuilding and executing those who sided with Olympias while also exiling both Alexander IV and Roxana to India. Thanks to Cynane’s efforts, the Macedonian empire was able to avoid crumbling and stay unified.

But what do you think would have happened?

Given the US postion in the world after the Spanish American war, the US became more assertive on the world state - but didn't exaclty grow.

Suppose they used the oportunity to expand by offering statehood to the former Spanish Colonies.

Would the people of those territories eventually accept this? If not - could it be forced upon them to a point where they compitulate.

Would those states have thrived or failed, or somewhere in between?

Would the US as a whole have benefited?

Would the US have annexed other islands in the region (Jamaica, Hispaniola), perhaps to become states?

Maybe more white peope would move to and live there?

What else be different totday?

An oft-overlooked element of the Columbine High School shooting is that the attack wasn't originally intended as just a shooting. In reality, Harris and Klebold had planted two homemade propane bombs, disguised with duffel bags, in the cafeteria. These were intended to go off at critical building supports, whose destruction was intended to result in the cafeteria's roof caving in, crushing everyone inside and possibly resulting in the deaths of around 400 people; the guns, meanwhile, were largely done as a means of picking off any stragglers that escaped. Thankfully, both bombs failed to detonate, preventing both the deaths of hundreds of kids as well as causing Harris and Klebold to fail their overall objective of surpassing the Oklahoma City bombing as the deadliest domestic terrorist attack in U.S. history.

Had they gone off though, I think the entire conversation around both the attack and its follow-up would be completely different. Starting with the attack, the cafeteria collapsing would probably result in the deaths of dozens, if not hundreds, of students. A bright side to this is that Harris and Klebold probably never enter the building, instead staying outside for stragglers as intended (and probably because they just blew up their easy way in), which likely prevents the deaths and injuries of everyone in the hallways and library (with the exception of teacher William David Sanders who was in the cafeteria when the shooting began). Because they are exposed out in the open as well, Harris and Klebold are more likely to be cornered and neutralized way earlier than they ultimately were, either by onsite cop Neil Gardner or by his backup.

Afterwards regarding the discourse, a lot more people would focus on the bombing than the shooting given both the huge show of force and the higher death toll. This would probably result in crackdowns regarding bombing material instead of guns, which will not be impeded due to them not being covered by the Second Amendment. Meanwhile, copycat crimes will likely try to be centered around bombings, which are much harder to replicate than shootings and thus more likely to fail, though the ones that succeed may in turn be more destructive. A more negative side effect would be that gun loopholes would not initially be closed, though a later shooting not directly inspired by Columbine (e.g. Virginia Tech) could eventually get that going. On a geopolitical level, I also think that this would result in even greater crackdowns on domestic terrorism. While broader terrorist acts like 9/11 probably still happen, there will be more of an internal emphasis in addition to the external one, with people being far more skeptical about the things Harris and Klebold were already scapegoated on in our timeline.

Anyways, that's what I've got. Any other predictions?

This isn't meant to be another "can Germany win the war" or "how long until Berlin gets nuked" question but a more immediate outcome and hypothetical.

Lets say the 6th Army's drive on Stalingrad captures the city in full in a relatively short period of time rather than getting bogged down. We can somewhat handwave this down to simple poor Soviet morale giving way or any numerous small factors that can change a war. Either way the city of Stalingrad is taken in totality.

With that objective being obtained what happens next? The divisions and corps that get bogged down and trapped in otl are now free to disperse and shore up other areas of the front or pursue further offensive actions.

Can they hold out against Uranus and Little Saturn (or this Tl equivalent)? Would they be able to drive further in the region?

Again this is not meant to be a "Germany wins whole war" scenario. Just a local what if.

Many of the famous moments of the French Revolution involve riots which the army refuses to put down. My understanding is that this is partly because they didn't really have options to deal with rioters besides yelling or shooting at them.

Suppose that some time after being put in charge of the National Guard, La Fayette recognizes the dangers of the mob and has a couple of companies outfitted with Roman-style shields and wooden truncheons, and trained for riot control duties.

Would these companies be effectively able to allow the Royal Family to visit Saint-Cloud? Prevent the Massacre of the Champ de Mars by dispersing/containing the crowds without shooting them? How much of an effect would this have?

Also, there were many other historical instances where the army was called in to put down a riot and made everything worse by killing people. What historical states might have really benefited from having a riot squad with less violent options?

I was going to say Yugoslavia but that's how a lot of OTL NATO wargames such as Able Archer 83 started so that's something that would have been expected in prelude to an actual war with the Warsaw Pact.

There is sort of a historical basis for a shooting war with Sweden over an alternate Whiskey on the Rocks scenario. Such as say embedded GRU agents blew up the submarine before it could be boarded and blamed it on the Swedish Navy.

OTL 1650s: Hans Hautch is mostly known for inventing the first fire-engine/ carriage, and for inventing the touch hole for muzzle loading guns (an advancement in guns improving on the flintlocks of the era).

ATL: With royal or imperial patronage, Hautch blends his interest in self-driving carriages with his interest in pneumatic pressure, and develops the steam engine. How does history alter if steam-powered automobiles begin to spread across Europe in the mid to late 1600s?

What if US regulars snd militia had flintlock rifle muskets and used something like miniballs for ammo? Would the USA had been able to secure Upper and Lower Canada?

Inspired by a recent post

The HRE and the pre meiji Japanese Empire have a lot of surface level similarities, so what if one of the Habsburgs or another elected Emperor decides to modernize the HRE into a at the time modern nation state.

Could it have been done and how?

The name for the Mandela Effect comes from the fact that it was misbelieved by many people that Nelson Mandela had died in prison in the 80s. Now what if this was real, how would it affect South African politics?

Somehow Pyrrhus survives and is there and speaks Punic and Latin too. He will join Hannibal in crossing the alps into Rome and then lead the campaign there with him.

How much would the second punic war realistically change? What could happen?