It all went downhill after the introduction of the Kromaggs and a certain character dying. The what if scenarios of the first two seasons were brilliantly written and can be thoughtfully analysed years, decades later. Keep up the good work!
Check out Liberty 1784 by Robert Conroy, it's an alternative history book set after the Colonials lose the battle of Yorktown and the French fleet is destroyed and the defeated armies outpost at Chicago. It's got some bad parts and less plausible moments (terrible tactics by the British, unrealistic production of Ferguson rifles even though they're really cool) but overall I enjoyed it.
how did the sheriff know who Quinn was considering there would have been no record of him? if there's any record of Quinn Mallory his doppelganger would have been arrested. you would think the government would question why this man doesn't exist that's leading the Raiders. also even if the Revolutionary War failed doesn't mean some point later America wouldn't have gotten its independence. either to another war or possibly just peaceful separation
I don't recall if he was the one who purposely left out the 2nd amendment, but it would make sense for Arturo to find it unnecessary since he is British. I wonder how much was supposed to be a character choice and how much was commentary.
The French army and navy couldn't have helped the revolution if there wasn't one to help, which there wouldn't have been if Washington wasn't there to hold it together.
Washington wasn't _that_ important to the Revolution. There were plenty of other Founding Fathers...and, you know, countless Americans whose names didn't get into the history books? The Great Man theory of history is bunk.
@@timothymclean How many of those other founders could do Washington's job? There's a reason all of them did what they did and didn't do other things. Just saying "everything was inevitable anyway" isn't a good theory either.
@@creatoruser736 1. What job was Washington's and nobody else's? He's far from the only military commander the revolutionaries had (just from the big historic names, we have folks like Paul Revere and Alexander Hamilton), the Founding Fathers were spoiled for choice when it came to statesmen, and he only had outsize political influence after the Revolution because of his role in the successful revolution. Hell, he's not even the only revolutionary who was an officer in the Seven Years' War-Wikipedia lists James Barrett, Esek Hopkins, John Morgan, and the aforementioned Paul Revere in the category "American military personnel of the Seven Years' War" (alongside Thomas Cumming, who doesn't seem to have participated). 2. I'm not saying it was inevitable, I'm saying that Washington's death isn't a big enough change to make history stop. Where did you get "what happened is inevitable" from "George Washington wasn't that important"?
This episode didn’t make any sense. In 1776, North America was divided by the English Empire, the French Empire and the Spanish Empire. What is now the American southwest, including California, was actually part of the Spanish empire at that time, which is why San Francisco is named that way instead of Saint Francis. So, if the American revolution never happened, than that would mean that the other revolutions for independence, like in Mexico, would’ve never happened, therefore San Francisco, California would actually have been ruled by the Spanish crown, not by the British.
The French didn't have an empire on mainland North America after their loss in the Seven Years War/French and Indian War (even their reacquisition of Louisiana was so brief that many towns were still flying Spanish flags when they got the news America had just bought them from the French). As for why the British are in California, even if the revolutions in Latin America didn't happen or were delayed, I don't think we can necessarily assume borders would stay the same for the next two centuries. British colonials were pushing westward and British attempts to stop it were half-hearted at best. Post-failed Revolution and I could see the British dropping their policy to keep the locals happy, which in turn would lead to conflicts with New Spain/Mexico eventually. So yeah not the most implausible part of this Sliders episode to be sure.
This timeline is less ridiculous than the ones seen in previous episodes, but it still relies on the Great Man theory of history (with George Washington's death spelling doom for the Revolution, never mind all the other revolutionaries) and implies that the American revolution's success was somehow required for anyone else to ever try to fight for democracy. An America-centric timeline _and_ one which glorifies the importance of historic individuals above the forces which made them influential-two of my least favorite alt-history tropes for the price of one! _And_ it assumes that no other significant changes to institutions would have occurred without the specific events that caused change in our timeline (kings leading armies on the battlefield?!?), which displays a level of ignorance or apathy that I also dislike. What's the point of an alternate history if you're not going to change anything except a few names and give the monarchs modern technology? The fact that the writers seemed to think that all monarchs were early-medieval-era absolute monarchs until after the American Revolution sure doesn't help, nor does the inexplicable importance of friggin' California. Well, inexplicable except in the sense that the series is set in California and they needed a reason to have the plot happen there. All in all...this timeline actually gives us something to talk about, which is an improvement, but I'm still baffled by how anyone would find the worldbuilding in this show interesting. They slap together some alt-history cliches until they can justify a cliched plot. Yikes.
I used to be down on the great man theory, but current events forced me to reconsider. The idea that everything is determined by the impersonal forces pushing this way or that works until those forces reach a point of turbulence, a truly chaotic moment in history when old paradigms become defunct and power/authority vacuum arises. It is then that a person in key position can credibly affect the direction of history. Revolutionary periods definitely fall under such category. A revolution may start due to larger forces, but it's outcome and direction is uncertain and may be affected by key individuals.
"British States of America" is a childishly implausible name for a colony.
So definitely realistic then.
It all went downhill after the introduction of the Kromaggs and a certain character dying. The what if scenarios of the first two seasons were brilliantly written and can be thoughtfully analysed years, decades later. Keep up the good work!
That is also when Jerry O'Connell left the show...
Such a shame that they had all this fun untapped potential of parallel Earths and they decide to say, nah, let's get these weirdos in here instead.
@@rafetizerit's as if they went woke and broke decades before. As if they set a trend.
I love how Quinn goes off on his solo mission and is so terrible at being sneaky he is almost immediately detained.
Nice to see you're back Matt!
Yeah I remember watching this series, but I got confused when one episode ended and the next episode was completely different.
Check out Liberty 1784 by Robert Conroy, it's an alternative history book set after the Colonials lose the battle of Yorktown and the French fleet is destroyed and the defeated armies outpost at Chicago. It's got some bad parts and less plausible moments (terrible tactics by the British, unrealistic production of Ferguson rifles even though they're really cool) but overall I enjoyed it.
how did the sheriff know who Quinn was considering there would have been no record of him? if there's any record of Quinn Mallory his doppelganger would have been arrested. you would think the government would question why this man doesn't exist that's leading the Raiders. also even if the Revolutionary War failed doesn't mean some point later America wouldn't have gotten its independence. either to another war or possibly just peaceful separation
I don't recall if he was the one who purposely left out the 2nd amendment, but it would make sense for Arturo to find it unnecessary since he is British. I wonder how much was supposed to be a character choice and how much was commentary.
Hey
why are you mean to CGI sharks? That was mean. Don't be mean.
The French army and navy couldn't have helped the revolution if there wasn't one to help, which there wouldn't have been if Washington wasn't there to hold it together.
Washington wasn't _that_ important to the Revolution. There were plenty of other Founding Fathers...and, you know, countless Americans whose names didn't get into the history books?
The Great Man theory of history is bunk.
@@timothymclean How many of those other founders could do Washington's job? There's a reason all of them did what they did and didn't do other things. Just saying "everything was inevitable anyway" isn't a good theory either.
@@creatoruser736 1. What job was Washington's and nobody else's? He's far from the only military commander the revolutionaries had (just from the big historic names, we have folks like Paul Revere and Alexander Hamilton), the Founding Fathers were spoiled for choice when it came to statesmen, and he only had outsize political influence after the Revolution because of his role in the successful revolution. Hell, he's not even the only revolutionary who was an officer in the Seven Years' War-Wikipedia lists James Barrett, Esek Hopkins, John Morgan, and the aforementioned Paul Revere in the category "American military personnel of the Seven Years' War" (alongside Thomas Cumming, who doesn't seem to have participated).
2. I'm not saying it was inevitable, I'm saying that Washington's death isn't a big enough change to make history stop. Where did you get "what happened is inevitable" from "George Washington wasn't that important"?
The Swamp Fox swayed the war in the Carolinas.
This episode didn’t make any sense. In 1776, North America was divided by the English Empire, the French Empire and the Spanish Empire. What is now the American southwest, including California, was actually part of the Spanish empire at that time, which is why San Francisco is named that way instead of Saint Francis. So, if the American revolution never happened, than that would mean that the other revolutions for independence, like in Mexico, would’ve never happened, therefore San Francisco, California would actually have been ruled by the Spanish crown, not by the British.
The French didn't have an empire on mainland North America after their loss in the Seven Years War/French and Indian War (even their reacquisition of Louisiana was so brief that many towns were still flying Spanish flags when they got the news America had just bought them from the French). As for why the British are in California, even if the revolutions in Latin America didn't happen or were delayed, I don't think we can necessarily assume borders would stay the same for the next two centuries. British colonials were pushing westward and British attempts to stop it were half-hearted at best. Post-failed Revolution and I could see the British dropping their policy to keep the locals happy, which in turn would lead to conflicts with New Spain/Mexico eventually. So yeah not the most implausible part of this Sliders episode to be sure.
Plus, it's a 90's tv show that just wasn't written that deep. Still, interesting takes here fellas.
This timeline is less ridiculous than the ones seen in previous episodes, but it still relies on the Great Man theory of history (with George Washington's death spelling doom for the Revolution, never mind all the other revolutionaries) and implies that the American revolution's success was somehow required for anyone else to ever try to fight for democracy. An America-centric timeline _and_ one which glorifies the importance of historic individuals above the forces which made them influential-two of my least favorite alt-history tropes for the price of one!
_And_ it assumes that no other significant changes to institutions would have occurred without the specific events that caused change in our timeline (kings leading armies on the battlefield?!?), which displays a level of ignorance or apathy that I also dislike. What's the point of an alternate history if you're not going to change anything except a few names and give the monarchs modern technology?
The fact that the writers seemed to think that all monarchs were early-medieval-era absolute monarchs until after the American Revolution sure doesn't help, nor does the inexplicable importance of friggin' California. Well, inexplicable except in the sense that the series is set in California and they needed a reason to have the plot happen there.
All in all...this timeline actually gives us something to talk about, which is an improvement, but I'm still baffled by how anyone would find the worldbuilding in this show interesting. They slap together some alt-history cliches until they can justify a cliched plot. Yikes.
I used to be down on the great man theory, but current events forced me to reconsider. The idea that everything is determined by the impersonal forces pushing this way or that works until those forces reach a point of turbulence, a truly chaotic moment in history when old paradigms become defunct and power/authority vacuum arises. It is then that a person in key position can credibly affect the direction of history. Revolutionary periods definitely fall under such category. A revolution may start due to larger forces, but it's outcome and direction is uncertain and may be affected by key individuals.
@@nosuchthingasshould4175 Exactly, or even a great person theory.....I.E. Joan of Arch