Alternate History NESes; Spout some ideas!

So? Which alternate histories appeal to you?

  • Rome Never Falls

    Votes: 58 35.8%
  • Axis Wins WWII

    Votes: 55 34.0%
  • D-Day Fails

    Votes: 41 25.3%
  • No Fort Sumter, No Civil War

    Votes: 32 19.8%
  • No Waterloo

    Votes: 33 20.4%
  • Islamic Europe

    Votes: 43 26.5%
  • No Roman Empire

    Votes: 37 22.8%
  • Carthage wins Punic Wars

    Votes: 51 31.5%
  • Alexander the Great survives his bout with malaria

    Votes: 54 33.3%
  • Mesoamerican Empires survived/Americas not discovered

    Votes: 48 29.6%
  • Americans lose revolutionary war/revolutionary war averted

    Votes: 44 27.2%
  • Years of Rice and Salt (Do it again!)

    Votes: 24 14.8%
  • Recolonization of Africa

    Votes: 20 12.3%
  • Advanced Native Americans

    Votes: 59 36.4%
  • Successful Zimmerman note

    Votes: 35 21.6%
  • Germany wins WWI

    Votes: 63 38.9%
  • Other

    Votes: 31 19.1%

  • Total voters
    162
North King said:
Actually, a horse is more efficient, but more expensive.
pxen are stronger, and carry a much heavy load- they just arnt as fast. that said, thier cheapnes smakes them infintelly more effiecient anyway.



Never said it was. ;)
but still an important factor for your argument of old world not developing becaus eof lack of horses- all said, the only effect is that nations like Parthia,Carthage, and most particulery, the mongols and huns, loose thier teeth, and become rather ineffectual in war- with the latter two, they religated from beign feriocius warriors of the step to being littl emore the northern asiatic bantu cattle herders.


Besides which, I don't think the western societies would have developed nearly as much. The horse was simply too essential for any nation beyond that of a low level agricultural state in Europe.
not so- if you want to limit old world devleopment, you have to take away cattle- the horse is merelly a faste rmode of transportation, and little else- it is cattle that the backboen fo civlization rests upon.
 
Xen said:
pxen are stronger, and carry a much heavy load- they just arnt as fast. that said, thier cheapnes smakes them infintelly more effiecient anyway.

I have in a reliable source that they were not as efficient pulling a plow.

but still an important factor for your argument of old world not developing becaus eof lack of horses- all said, the only effect is that nations like Parthia,Carthage, and most particulery, the mongols and huns, loose thier teeth, and become rather ineffectual in war- with the latter two, they religated from beign feriocius warriors of the step to being littl emore the northern asiatic bantu cattle herders.

Not necessarily, the horses missing merely means that warfare overall will be less advanced, they can develop other mediums, like swift warriors on foot, good with bows and spears... Zulu would be a good example. And they would be able to beat a Roman army, without gunpowder.

not so- if you want to limit old world devleopment, you have to take away cattle- the horse is merelly a faste rmode of transportation, and little else- it is cattle that the backboen fo civlization rests upon.

Not so, with only cattle you will have highly localized, agricultural states with no real opportunity for growing out of this. There will be little incentive to go to the expense of hauling food to the cities without horses.
 
Etruscans got conquered. READ THE TEXT, Xen.

I know about the cattle. But horses WERE important for agriculture. The presence of horses, aka fast transportation, stimulated trade and warfare. They also led to increased importance of speed. You also have to remember that, say, Mycenae was seriosuly less expansionist then the later Greece, and here, the Aryans have no horses to overrun them with. Phoenicea is facing a different problem, it is too busy fighting off camel-riding barbarians. However, don't worry, Phoenicean seafaring civilization will still get off the ground, and will be better off. And besides, the Old World will get a replacement for the horses eventually.
 
das said:
Etruscans got conquered. READ THE TEXT, Xen.

I know about the cattle. But horses WERE important for agriculture. The presence of horses, aka fast transportation, stimulated trade and warfare.
for some peoples, and not for others- but overall it wa sonyl the steppe nomads who actually had a lifestyle dependent on horses, and they weren the ones makign all the technological developments

They also led to increased importance of speed. You also have to remember that, say, Mycenae was seriosuly less expansionist then the later Greece,
what dose that have to do with anything? with no horses, the mycenaeans just get bowled over by the dorians even easyer.

and here, the Aryans have no horses to overrun them with. Phoenicea is facing a different problem, it is too busy fighting off camel-riding barbarians.
why is that?

However, don't worry, Phoenicean seafaring civilization will still get off the ground, and will be better off. And besides, the Old World will get a replacement for the horses eventually.
I dont care about phoneicia- it coudl never develop, and things wouldnt change- the Minoans woudl have developed in the absence of horses, because thats what happend in real life- and they ended up being one of the most advanced nations fo the pre-iron age world.

though it dosent matter- horses arnt important- they are merelyl a mode of transportation that, quite honestlly, is not at all needed for a civlization to develop, as long as other factors, such as having other domesticates, and haveing domesticated crops, are presetnt- both of these are of course achieved by those old world civs.
 
North King said:
I have in a reliable source that they were not as efficient pulling a plow.
mind telling me?

Not necessarily, the horses missing merely means that warfare overall will be less advanced, they can develop other mediums, like swift warriors on foot, good with bows and spears... Zulu would be a good example. And they would be able to beat a Roman army, without gunpowder.
A)it wont mean that warfare overall will be less advanced, it will probably be MORE adanced, as people are forced to look to bette rinfantry formations, and bows for weaponry and strategy

B)The zulu wouldnt have stood a chance to a roman army, they didnt even use ranged weapons, and thier tactics were primitive, and they wought in a unregimented, and uncordintated brawl beypng the most obtuse of military formations- they would have been bowled over and killed, and more then likelyl massacered by the Romans.


Not so, with only cattle you will have highly localized, agricultural states with no real opportunity for growing out of this. There will be little incentive to go to the expense of hauling food to the cities without horses.
A)horses were expenisve, and were never the primary animal of pulling large freight in the ancitn world- it was oxen, when horses were used, it was becaus eof thier speed, and it was because it was needed fast; not becaus eit was the more effective mode of transportation

B)soceities that palced almost no emphisis on the horse in thier culture, as a mode of transportation, or a method of war got along just fine- the biggest example is the greeks- no animals other then lambs and goats do very well in greece, its just to rocky, and mountanous for them, until you get up to around thessally,and as you woudl expect from thatm, the peoples of greece proper didnt use horses much, for war, or civli duty, until peloponesian war- and they seemed to have developed just wonderfully without them.

I dont know why people cant just accept it- the horse counts for nearlyl nothign in terms ofcivlization devleopment in the old world- puting it inthe new world, and taking it outof the old world, only impacts the new world in any significant manner- and even then its a localized event, as the same barrires that stoped Illams from spreading fromt he incas to the aztec woudl stop horses form the aztecs to the Incas.
 
for some peoples, and not for others- but overall it wa sonyl the steppe nomads who actually had a lifestyle dependent on horses, and they weren the ones makign all the technological developments

Perhaps... but ox carts were not as fast as horse carts, or so I am led to believe. Horses can carry less weight, but

And remember one of the most important reasons of urbanization, btw - the fortified settlements that latter became cities were, at least partially, built to ward off the
"barbarians".

what dose that have to do with anything? with no horses, the mycenaeans just get bowled over by the dorians even easyer.

Uh, I was led to believe that it was the DORIANS who used horses. In fact, I honestly doubt that territories like Greece could be defended by horses. And Mycenae will fall later on, don't worry.

why is that?

Well, duh. Because the horses died out!
I dont care about phoneicia- it coudl never develop, and things wouldnt change- the Minoans woudl have developed in the absence of horses, because thats what happend in real life- and they ended up being one of the most advanced nations fo the pre-iron age world.

Minoa is sort of dead as well... Myceneans killed it.

Things couldn't change? Then what are you doing in this thread? Quite frankly, I disagree with the marxist view that history is predetermined. Just because Phoenicea didn't survive doesn't mean that it couldn't.
though it dosent matter- horses arnt important- they are merelyl a mode of transportation that, quite honestlly, is not at all needed for a civlization to develop, as long as other factors, such as having other domesticates, and haveing domesticated crops, are presetnt- both of these are of course achieved by those old world civs.

Four oxens for a plow versus one horse for the same plow.

And why do you think that they are "of course" achieved? For one thing, I never said cattle survived. Though I didn't say the contrary neither, and they did. Nevertheless, this world was different from the times of Late Pleistocine.

Okay, perhaps for the "correctness" we could say that Late Pleistocene destroyed the Old World domesticable mammals instead of New World ones (OOC: anything to make Xen shut up :lol: ). Will that make you any happier?
 
das said:
Perhaps... but ox carts were not as fast as horse carts, or so I am led to believe. Horses can carry less weight, but

And remember one of the most important reasons of urbanization, btw - the fortified settlements that latter became cities were, at least partially, built to ward off the
"barbarians".
no. urbanization occured because it wa spossibel to liv ein larg ecommuntities with a minimal amount of internal violence between parties whom have no relaitonship to one another, and becaus efood production coudl support larger, centrlize dpopulations- if anything, ;'barbarism" arose as a response to urbanization, not urbanization a response to barbarians


Uh, I was led to believe that it was the DORIANS who used horses. In fact, I honestly doubt that territories like Greece could be defended by horses. And Mycenae will fall later on, don't worry.
A)the dorians used anything they could get ;)
B)territories like greece cant really be defended by horses, which why they weren used much,a nd why greek civlization essentially developed without them, and using oxen instead.


Well, duh. Because the horses died out!
. I mean why are they being attacked int he firs tplace? dosent seem to be a real reason for it, other then "because"

Minoa is sort of dead as well... Myceneans killed it.
well, that follows the real life pattern ;)

Things couldn't change? Then what are you doing in this thread? Quite frankly, I disagree with the marxist view that history is predetermined. Just because Phoenicea didn't survive doesn't mean that it couldn't.
never said they coudlet change- just said they wouldnt change under these circumstances, at least not int he old world, and they woudl only change locally in the new world.

[/quote]
Four oxens for a plow versus one horse for the same plow.[/quote]
you can use one ox just as fine for a plow you know- it all depends on what your plants, and what soil your in, some soild require you to go deeper, to find richer soil- the deeper you have to go, the more force you need, and thus th emore animals required

And why do you think that they are "of course" achieved? For one thing, I never said cattle survived. Though I didn't say the contrary neither, and they did. Nevertheless, this world was different from the times of Late Pleistocine.
if cattle handt survived, then you old world civlizations woudlnt have develpod, though to be fair, you have to wipe out around a dozen seperate species of animals to make sure the old world dosent have any good domesticates

Okay, perhaps for the "correctness" we could say that Late Pleistocene destroyed the Old World domesticable mammals instead of New World ones (OOC: anything to make Xen shut up :lol: ). Will that make you any happier?
not particurly, because then your old world civlizations wouldnt have developed, and your scenrios woudl still be skewed
 
History of Horse World 1000 BC - 300 BC. Early Classical Era.

Old World:

Mycenae finally fell to the Dacian onslaught, however eventually, the local Dacians were assimilated by the remnants of Mycenean culture to create the Pyriote Confederation unifying Greece Proper, how ever loosely. Troy became a leading power in the east, gaining control over East Cyprus, Crete and the Aegean. Syracuse was abandoned. Karthavea was slowly, but surely expanding and making good use of agriculture. In Middle East, the camels dominated the battlefield. Hyksos camel-riders defeated Arameans and went with sword and fire throughout much of Phoenicea until it was stopped at Haifa. This opened the path to Sidon unifying the Phoeniceans (as all others were even more crippled), though the area in Anatolia was lost to Abrahamea, which in the same time begun developping the Old World's first monotheism. Sidonese Phoenicea soon restarted naval expansion, rebuilding Syracuse (Siraks-Hadasha, or just Siraks) and establishing trade posts on African and Italian coasts. Arameans, expelled from their lands by the Hyksos proceeded to destroy the kingdom of their assimilated relatives in Sumeria. Many Sumerian achievements were lost to that invasion... Egypt was the only trully-prospering Old World civilization. It too utilized the camels well under the "Expansionist Dynasty" of Pharaohs such as Ptahotep, Nekhekre, Amenhotep ( ;) ) and Mahoseph (this period was in circa 800 BC - 500 BC), crushing and enslaving the Nubians and the Libyans (in Cyrenaica). Dravidia was stagnating. Longshanese China eventually collapsed, but much like a Phoenix, it rose again as the Wang-li Empire, gaining the tradition of chronology which was of much use to historians later on and having somewhat expanded further south, while developping a road system and a "runner" message system to go along with it, providing fairly efficient buerocracy.

New World (as usual, in more detail then Old World as it is more interesting and "better-known" to historians of Horse World):

Great Lakes: circa 900 BC, near OTL Lake Erie, fortified settlements of a bronze-age culture of Vaahna emerged. It is interesting as it was a fully-fledged civilization despite being thought of as "barbarians". It acknowledged the power of a Mahnadrin (Supreme Ruler, king), had a developed runic alphabet and some primitive agriculture (including some sort of a cow-like mammal which evolved from a bison. And this is not the last that you will hear from evolution of species in this TL!). The Vaahna have used the southward migration of Hodenaans to move west, fighting the remaining Hodenaans and claiming new lands (controlling much of the area south of the Great Lakes), something that was forever remembered in "Ohaalarinod", "Tale of Aalarini".

Messipia: As of 1000 BC, Messipia was at its zenith, perhaps, as it had been the first civilization to fully use the potential of the "baws" (bison cows) to help its agriculture and to use bronze weapons. Circa 850 BC, the 5th Dynasty Messipians conquered Ereniji. That proved their undoing, though, as the war tired them and brought them in direct confrontation with the Hodenaans at the time of a particularily harsh winter. Naturally, the Hodenaans begun moving south en masse as soon as they heard that the Messipian army had troubles asserting control over new areas. Tragically, Messipia was crushed, but luckily, the more important of its achievements survived, allowing the Hodenaans who settled on the coast to start everything anew. The Haellian Empire that rose on the ruins of Messipia was even greater. In circa 550 BC, as Iron Age reached Messipia, the other Hodenaans in the area were subjugated, and expansion was taking place, primarily east-wards. There was occasional maritime contact with the rising civilizations of Mesoamerica, although it was also from the south that the main threat to Haellian Messipia came - Carib raiders, having developped advanced boats (think protolongboats) were devastating the coastline and the trade ports.

California (OOC: read: pretty much all of North America's Pacific coast): Around that time, the Orasezi peoples were settling down in the four main "city valleys" of California: the southern or Sasezi (in Sonora), southern-middle or Velezi (around Los Angeles), northern-middle or Mareli (around San Francisco) and northern or Irenezi (Seattle-Vancouver). By 700 BC, there were pretty much well-established unified and urbanized states in each valley, sharing a language and general traits of the culture. The interesting part about the Orasezi culture was that it was a very philosophical one, but rather then become a mystical, religious culture like the Mayans and the Hamese, the Orasezi culture was increasingly based on "rationality". It was in it that advanced mathematics, logic and (by a side effect) advanced architecture emerged. The religion was a typical tolerant polytheism. The four valleys were isolated from the rest of the New World at first, and traded (and occasionally fought) with each other. Naval warfare gained importance there as well, as it was hard to travel through the hills and the deserts between the valleys.

Mekhikia: Back in Mesoamerica, circa 900 BC the Olmec state mystiriously disappeared. It is believed that it either collapsed by itself, either due to the Carib raids and/or the Mekhikian pressure. The Mekhikians took some parts of the Olmec culture, but large amount of cultural influence came from the Mayans. As a result, the Mekhikians formed their own states, largely based on tribal despotism evolving into kingship. After several wars with large use of chariots and occasional Mayan intervention, in circa 700 BC the Mekhikians formed the empire of Kharek. It was during the Mekhikian Wars that Iron Age had begun.

Mayans: Tikalese Empire was weakened by volcanic explosions near its center, and after the death of Palenhoe in 831 BC, the Mayans were redivided. The northern city states, forming the Chichen Itza League, conquered numerous northern territory, but descendants of the Tikalese ruling dynasty relocated their capital to Aruizotl on the Pacific coast. The wetlands and jungles of "Petan", the area where Tikal was originally located, became the border between the two Mayan powers. Both developped well, especially in fields of astrology and architecture but also developping advanced alphabeths and sailing ships ("Quetza" galleys). While Chichen Itza used its naval technology to set up a somewhat usable (though still dangerous due to the Carib raids) trade route to Messipia, Aruizotlese "Quetzas" sailed south, establishing trade contacts with local peoples. Eventually, this brought them into contact with the Moche peoples (667 BC), stimulating development in the Andes...

The Andes: At that point, Chavin and Paraca were the dominant powers in the region. However, the establishment of contact with the Mayans was the privilege of the then-minor Moche peoples. Having acquired from the trade secrets of bronze working, the Moche soon became an important power as well. The three powers were rarely fighting seriously, though, as they were too distant from each other.

Argentina: Previous dominated by local horse nomads (the Orese), it was in about 700 BC that the Hamese people have arrived, presumably from the Andes. The Hamese settled in the Pampas, and soon became a distinct cultural entity. They worshipped a single god, Haanar (The Eternal Wind), and were ran by a theocratic ruler. The Hamese, having founded the city of Haa-Phel, used advanced cavalry (with stirrups and reins) against the Orese (who presumably were looting their temples), pushing them out to the harsh(er) lands of Patagonia.
 
Well, okay, how about that: SOME of them died out. As a result, the civilization still develops, but more slowly.

Anyway, lack of horses would mean considerably smaller states. Perhaps also no/underdevelopped road building. Maritime civilization still will appear, but somewhat later on.

In the meantime, presence of horses would give the much-needed inertion for the Native American civilizations to domesticate, say, the bisons.

And as for the horses never reaching the Incans, first of all, there probably won't be Incans, and secondly, the horses already reached Argentina. Which is all that matters. ;)
 
das said:
Well, okay, how about that: SOME of them died out. As a result, the civilization still develops, but more slowly.

Anyway, lack of horses would mean considerably smaller states. Perhaps also no/underdevelopped road building. Maritime civilization still will appear, but somewhat later on.
thier have already been advanced maritime nations in your NES, and road building wont be hampere by lack of horses- as the Roman empire in OTL readilly shows ;)

In the meantime, presence of horses would give the much-needed inertion for the Native American civilizations to domesticate, say, the bisons.
never argued that- though a better scenario, an done that could more easilyl wirtten, is what woudl happen if horses never died out in North America, while leaving them alive in the old world- because the old world history is done with- you dont have to write it, but the newworld civs go on thier own tangent, and hwo they interact is somthing really worth somthing

And as for the horses never reaching the Incans, first of all, there probably won't be Incans, and secondly, the horses already reached Argentina. Which is all that matters. ;)
bah, it wouldnt have in real life ;)
 
thier have already been advanced maritime nations in your NES, and road building wont be hampere by lack of horses- as the Roman empire in OTL readilly shows

Roman roads were largely built for the chariots. If you can imagine how would a goat chariot work, do tell.
though a better scenario, an done that could more easilyl wirtten, is what woudl happen if horses never died out in North America, while leaving them alive in the old world- because the old world history is

Yes, but I don't like copying the atlas for my maps, and don't like to do more research then neccessary, thus changing the history for as much of the world as possible is the easiest for me.

Do you have proof there weren't horses in Argentina before dying out?
 
das said:
Roman roads were largely built for the chariots. If you can imagine how would a goat chariot work, do tell.
thats bull****- the only use the Romans had for chariots was in the circus maximus, ans similer imperial venues- they werent used in everyday life, other thne occasional parade.

Yes, but I don't like copying the atlas for my maps, and don't like to do more research then neccessary, thus changing the history for as much of the world as possible is the easiest for me.

Do you have proof there weren't horses in Argentina before dying out?

I will later in the day; as far as i know, horses never inhabited any part of south america- the terrian simply wasnt conductive to thie rmigration through the amazon/ proto amazon for them to get to argentina
 
Roman roads were built so that the Roman army could better access the various parts of Italy/the empire.
 
Yes... but I've read somewhere that the reason for building such good roads was to accomadate HORSE carts and HORSE CHARIOTS. Don't remember how it went, nor where did I read it. Maybe Britannica?

Besides, no horses=no Rome.

Should I continue this? Because, if not, I have a very good potential alt. hist. scenario which will be one of the candidates for NES2 III.
 
das said:
Yes... but I've read somewhere that the reason for building such good roads was to accomadate HORSE carts and HORSE CHARIOTS. Don't remember how it went, nor where did I read it. Maybe Britannica?

Besides, no horses=no Rome.

Should I continue this? Because, if not, I have a very good potential alt. hist. scenario which will be one of the candidates for NES2 III.

A)you read wrong- horses were too expensive for most people to afford, and oxen were the animal of choice; thats why bull cults (as oxeb area derivtitive of cattle) date back to before the bronze age, but no such cults exist for the horse.


B) the chariot part is complete nonsesne- chariots were unstable, and dangerous, and only a lunatic, a professional, or someone who coudl afford to go at a pace so slow that it woudl be faster to just go on foot (eg; an demperor, rideing in chariot, with marching troops along side) woudl do it.

C)please xplain how no horse equal no rome- horses are unimportant in Roman history until Rome had virtually consolodated italy, and was thus forced to have a cavalry arm, and even then, it wasnt until the imperial era that horses cam eof real importance.

D)and for note, the sea peoples are recorded as using chariots draw by oxen, or at lewas tmobile fighting platforms, and troop-transports, a tradition that survived int he greek colony of Cyrenica well into classical times.
 
Well chariots were widely used in Britain before and after the romans came not exactly the roman style they looked more like half carts however it is proof that they were used even if not as transport. As for the paved roads being made for the chariots i dont know i dont think that it makes sense, why would an instrument of war that charges over hills and varying terrain need specialised roads?
 
A)it wasnt used for war by the Romans- it never was, and its only purpose was for eithe rparades, and chariot races, neither fo which took place on the roads going from town to town

B)chariots dont needs specialized roads- if they did, they woudl have never been used for war by anyone in the first place
 
i didnt think they used chariots but just in case you know. to be honest the whole reason for roman roads i allways thought was due to the massive amount of equipment they needed to get from place to place and having your baggage train sunk in mud would'nt be a very good situation to be in. Plus the locals would like it :)
 
A)you read wrong- horses were too expensive for most people to afford, and oxen were the animal of choice; thats why bull cults (as oxeb area derivtitive of cattle) date back to before the bronze age, but no such cults exist for the horse.

As in none at all? Tell that to the ancient Bulgarians...

B) the chariot part is complete nonsesne- chariots were unstable, and dangerous, and only a lunatic, a professional, or someone who coudl afford to go at a pace so slow that it woudl be faster to just go on foot (eg; an demperor, rideing in chariot, with marching troops along side) woudl do it.

Tell that to the ancient Egyptians...
C)please xplain how no horse equal no rome- horses are unimportant in Roman history until Rome had virtually consolodated italy, and was thus forced to have a cavalry arm, and even then, it wasnt until the imperial era that horses cam eof real importance.

Without horses, it will be hard to create a large empire in the first place. Possible exception is Incans, but they had a different, more productive mindset. Horses were needed for transportation, and, more importantly, for messangers. And don't forget the auxilliaries. They WERE important. A "Minoan" empire, like yours, could perhaps exist. A "Roman" empire? Doubtable. Especially without Alexander's example.
D)and for note, the sea peoples are recorded as using chariots draw by oxen, or at lewas tmobile fighting platforms, and troop-transports, a tradition that survived int he greek colony of Cyrenica well into classical times.

CHARIOTS DRIVEN BY OXEN? Sorry, don't imagine that. Pictures?

And Romans were not sea people.
 
Oxen-drawn chariots (onagers actually) were only recorded to be in use by the ancient Sumerians.

Ox-drawn CARTS were never recorded to be used in battle after Sumeria from what I know..
 
Back
Top Bottom