Alternate History NESes; Spout some ideas!

A)the Trojan era was AT LEAST 300-500 prior to Athnes, and was during the Mycenaean era of Greece- a very feudalistic period for Greece, and the near east as whole (Troy was at least an ally of, if not a vassal of some leval, of the Hittite empire)

B)bringing up troy only serves as an emphisis- the Trojans didnt have an empire- the closest they gopt was having a very long list of allies, and having a few relitives of the Trojan king as kings of surrounding areas.

C)the Syracusians were Dorians (being a colony of Corinth) the peloponesia war brought up just as many stratifacations in the minor Greek differences as anything, and its why several pre-war delian league members switched sides- because they were dorians, and all the dorians were flocking to the Spartan corner- its also a reason why syracuse was chosen as a potential conquest- until the attakc, the syracusians actually had a democracy, and were on somwhat friendlly terms with Athens, because they had the luxury of being far removed from the war until that point; but being dorian, and a colony of corinth, one of the big Three (the major enimies of Athens in the war, comprising Sparta,Corinth, and Thebes at that point was actually the weakest of them) obviouslly, a major mistake was actually moving agianst Syracuse because of the risk involved- if they lost, they also lost not only the major greek colony in southern Italy, thus risking Athens own colonies in the region, like Thurii, but potentially all the valuble supplies that came in from the area as well- which, because Alcibiades had so many opponents (he was brilliant, but also a pompus ass) they did (not only did they lose, but its likelly if they had choosen ANYONE other then who they did to lead the attack on syracuse- that is to say, the made the main oppoenent of the idea for a sicillian expedition the commander- they would have won, they had such an advatage)

D)I forget exactley what caused the Roman-Carthage relationship to break up, but IIRC, Rome and carthage orgionally did have an alliance for the mutual benifit of keep all of the southern Greek states- syracuse in particuler down, at least economically, partially this was an effort by Ropme to keep yet other powers outside of Italy, as it was feared that the carthaginians might have had ambitions create a colony in italy- and Rome, as well as the other powers in italy at that point were about fed up with the greeks as colonizers in general...

A)the Trojan era was AT LEAST 300-500 prior to Athnes, and was during the Mycenaean era of Greece- a very feudalistic period for Greece, and the near east as whole (Troy was at least an ally of, if not a vassal of some leval, of the Hittite empire)

Click to expand...

I know, I know. Furthermore one might say that Aeneas is just a myth.

As for the Hittites... I never heard of that, but its quite possible. At least, it does seem reasonable for the Hittites.

B)bringing up troy only serves as an emphisis- the Trojans didnt have an empire- the closest they gopt was having a very long list of allies, and having a few relitives of the Trojan king as kings of surrounding areas.

Click to expand...

The same could be said of Athens, though I realize that by the time of the Peloponessian War, they were more then halfway into turning their own list of allies into an empire. Well, technically, they probably already turned it into that.

C)the Syracusians were Dorians (being a colony of Corinth) the peloponesia war brought up just as many stratifacations in the minor Greek differences as anything, and its why several pre-war delian league members switched sides- because they were dorians, and all the dorians were flocking to the Spartan corner- its also a reason why syracuse was chosen as a potential conquest- until the attakc, the syracusians actually had a democracy, and were on somwhat friendlly terms with Athens, because they had the luxury of being far removed from the war until that point; but being dorian, and a colony of corinth, one of the big Three (the major enimies of Athens in the war, comprising Sparta,Corinth, and Thebes at that point was actually the weakest of them) obviouslly, a major mistake was actually moving agianst Syracuse because of the risk involved- if they lost, they also lost not only the major greek colony in southern Italy, thus risking Athens own colonies in the region, like Thurii, but potentially all the valuble supplies that came in from the area as well- which, because Alcibiades had so many opponents (he was brilliant, but also a pompus ass) they did (not only did they lose, but its likelly if they had choosen ANYONE other then who they did to lead the attack on syracuse- that is to say, the made the main oppoenent of the idea for a sicillian expedition the commander- they would have won, they had such an advatage)

Click to expand...

Sorry, Xen, but I don't quite understand that last sentance. Your spelling is not as bad as your punctography.

Anyway, I think an attack on Syracuse COULD have suceeded. After that, if the campaign still is bloody, the Athenians could just beat the "Dorianness" out of the Syracusians, or just burn it down altogether and rebuild it later, ala Romans with Carthage. That way, it could become the "Second Athens", allowing them to flee there if needed.

I think that if not for Alcibiades being thrown out (well, some of the things they blamed him in are probably true, but one of the key "offenses" he commited was unlikely to be his doing. Either way, I understand that the priesthood must have been mad at him for, excuse me, "castrating" the statues, even though I doubt he did it), the victory would have been almost guaranteed by that alone. It was, after all, Alcibiades that brokered the alliance between Sparta and Persia. Not to mention the other possibilities that he offered to the Athenians that could have turned the war around alone.

D)I forget exactley what caused the Roman-Carthage relationship to break up, but IIRC, Rome and carthage orgionally did have an alliance for the mutual benifit of keep all of the southern Greek states- syracuse in particuler down, at least economically, partially this was an effort by Ropme to keep yet other powers outside of Italy, as it was feared that the carthaginians might have had ambitions create a colony in italy- and Rome, as well as the other powers in italy at that point were about fed up with the greeks as colonizers in general...

Click to expand...

More like with the Greeks as competitors. So anyway, I believe that Rome and Carthage are likely to become great allies. Until the order of "Syracusium Delenda Est" (with a convenient translation to Phoenicean included) is carried out, that is. Then again, who knows... An alliance on the basis of division of spheres of influence in the Meidterranean and beating the hell out of various Greek Diadochi successor states, provided those are present, might just work.

Btw - I don't mind, but weren't you supposed to have that whole Saturnalia thing or something? (which you used as the justification of the abrupt end of the "Christianity vs. Rome" argument) Not that I have any idea whether it was on the 25th or will be on the 31st.

And btw - the more important reason for which Alcibiades had so many enemies was probably jealousy. He was much smarter then those around him. Much like his teacher, Socrat. Problem was, Alcibiades didn't even try to hide it. That alone guarantees the contempt from other important Athenians.

Okay, Xen, what about this scenario (only a rough outline, actually):

Alcibiades is allowed to carry out the Sicilian Campaign. After a lengthy siege, and despite the bravery of the Syracusean garrison (bolstered by the presence of a Spartan commander), Syracuse falls and is pillaged, to be later rebuilt as Niceasic Syracuse (naturally, most people still call it Syracuse, or sometimes New Syracuse). In 425, the Spartans are even more desperate then historically, and sign "Leonidos' Peace", formalizing and expanding the Athenian Empire which begins to place even more direct rule. When Macedon does rise, it is forced to meet, on one hand, a more centralized and powerful Athenian Empire, but, on the other hand, a not-as-powerful Thebes that hates the Athenians, as do the Corinthians and the Spartans. Phillip (provided he still exists) manages to turn his invasion of Athenian territory into a "War of Hellenic Liberation" (a bit like the Spartans did, with a certain degree of success, in the OTL Peloponessian War), and the Athenians happen to be throughly whacked on the land. They decide to "pull a Salamis", and defeat the Macedonnian and Allied fleet, but, unlike with the original Salamis, Athens remains in enemy hands. The Athenians choose to flee to their colony of Syracuse...

http://www.geocities.com/cypher_zzz/shattered/shattered.htm

amazing alternate history, though I dobt Stalin would do that, he never suspected Hitler even on the eve on Barbarossa.

I just got to part 10, where Germany makes a deal with Iraq. Considering Iraq was under British rule I find this highly improbable and would like to throw this out the window

das said:

I know, I know. Furthermore one might say that Aeneas is just a myth.

Click to expand...

who said he was anything other then a myth-a wonderful story, possible based on what seems to be the etruscans orginateing from anatolia, and sailign over to Italy, but its iffy; though the story, which was regadrded as true by Greek historians by the etruscan orgins, could easilly have been an impulse for the story of Aeneas; after all, the Homerian epic never actually detials the fall of Troy mind you, that was actually an addition added on later, in the odyssey- the illiad ends at the body of hector being given back to Priam, and never actually says who won the war.

As for the Hittites... I never heard of that, but its quite possible. At least, it does seem reasonable for the Hittites.

Click to expand...

thier are hitties documents, and even egyptian documents that describe Trojan chariot contigents at the the battle of quadesh, amoungst other places

The same could be said of Athens, though I realize that by the time of the Peloponessian War, they were more then halfway into turning their own list of allies into an empire. Well, technically, they probably already turned it into that.

Click to expand...

the peloponesian war started because Athens had turned all its allies into its empire

Sorry, Xen, but I don't quite understand that last sentance. Your spelling is not as bad as your punctography.

Click to expand...

];???...!

Anyway, I think an attack on Syracuse COULD have suceeded. After that, if the campaign still is bloody, the Athenians could just beat the "Dorianness" out of the Syracusians, or just burn it down altogether and rebuild it later, ala Romans with Carthage. That way, it could become the "Second Athens", allowing them to flee there if needed.

Click to expand...

I already sai the attack on syracuse SHOULD have succeeded, and th eonly reason it didnt was because the Athenians choose, litterally, the WORST possible candidtae to carry it out- if they had choosen anyone other then who they did choose to lead it, the attack probabley would have suceeded- but I think they gave him the sicillian expedition for the exact reast that it was "sure thing", because as the main opposition leader to alcibaides (and ironically, the entire expedition to syracuse in the first place) he needed to beef up his reputation...

as for a second athens- wouldnt happend- somthing similer happend only once in Greek history,when the messainians were conqoured by Sparta, the left over ones fled to Sicillia, and founded the city of the same name as thier old region; and never agian after that- the Greeks, particuraley the ever self imporetant Athenians would never do such a thing- remember, only one other city got thier citizenship, and none of the Athenian colonies did.

[/quote]
More like with the Greeks as competitors. So anyway, I believe that Rome and Carthage are likely to become great allies. Until the order of "Syracusium Delenda Est" (with a convenient translation to Phoenicean included) is carried out, that is. Then again, who knows... An alliance on the basis of division of spheres of influence in the Meidterranean and beating the hell out of various Greek Diadochi successor states, provided those are present, might just work.[/quote]
to much depends on specifics- just liek in real life, such an alliance could easilly fall apart, and result in bitter hostilties

Btw - I don't mind, but weren't you supposed to have that whole Saturnalia thing or something? (which you used as the justification of the abrupt end of the "Christianity vs. Rome" argument) Not that I have any idea whether it was on the 25th or will be on the 31st.

Click to expand...

25th, and no worries, I'll be back for that argument, even though it spointless, as you cant see how the connections work apperntlly as to how seeminglly little detials add up to major changes, even the span of time as short as one mans reign as emperor.

What if Vercingetorix's rebellion succeeded? Say, he got more tribes to rebel with him, or he simply outdid Caesar startegically (gasp!)?

Or, what if Carthage had began colonizing Italy instead of Sicily? It's possible...

Edit:

What if Harald Hardrada had succeeded in conquering England?

Amenhotep7 said:

What if Vercingetorix's rebellion succeeded? Say, he got more tribes to rebel with him, or he simply outdid Caesar startegically (gasp!)?

Click to expand...

Even I find that unlikely... but let's see...

Caesar having failed miserably in Gaul, he headed back to Rome in shame. The Gauls were now once again raiding Italy, and the Republic was in serious straits. Pompey's conquest of [insert land here] was the one bright spot for the republic in this time, but overall, the massive armies lost, the Republic was destitute. New armies were raised, several legions worth, who finally did the trick and slaughtered the Gallic raiders, but mindful of Caesar's blunder, they were careful not to invade.

Of course, Rome was still a mighty nation, with Illyria, Greece, Hispania, parts of Africa, Ionia, and a small part of Anatolia recognizing their rule, but the defeat was a huge one, and the need to refocus on the Gallic frontier took a large amount of manpower.

With Caesar shamed, though, the Triumviate was very unstable, with only Pompey and Crassus being of any particular note, of course. Thus, with it turned into a two man arms race, it soon became a tossup as to who was the more powerful. Pompey managed one of the biggest conquests in Roman history, a massiv move into Germania to attempt to outflnk Gallica, meanwhile, Crassus managed to spectacularly fail in the East against the Parthians.

The East seemed completely lost, with a large and hostile Parthian Empire looming on the Med coast already. Egypt, with a rather cold and hostile relation to Rome, was a no fly zone either. Anatolia was finally gradually united by the remanants of the Greek Successor states, whose reformed armies crushed the Romans altogether at the battle of Halicarnassus, in the shadow of the famous Mausoleum.

Rome, now confined to Italy, Spain, Greece (and there having to deal with a new rebellion), and Dalmatia, was in serious peril, under attack on all frontiers. Gradually the Romans decided to consolidate, and they conquered Mauritania and Tingis in the late 40s BCE, under Pompey. Fresh from these conquests, Pompey declared himself Emperor, crushing the weak Republican armies outside of Rome under Julius Caesar, who commited suicide afterwards.

The Germanic conquests, however, were lost to the new, vigourous Gallic leadership, who had miraculously managed to centralize their nation and reform it's military into a machine capable of defeating Rome itself.

Thus, Rome began to look for new opportunities of expansion, perhaps the African coast would suit their tastes? Egypt was the largest greek successor state left, while the Selucids had reconquered Anatolia, and were largely defensive minded. The Parthians were in an aggresive state, and set their sites on Arabia, while the new united Macedon was determined to conquer Dacia.

the celts couldnt begin rading Italy again- even if ceasar was crushed, the Gauls would still have thier hands full with the germanic invasion that actually caused the guals to invite rome into the territory in the first place; notto mention siginifcent maounts of gallic tribes woudl stil be allied to Rome, creating the buffer between Italy, and Gaul proper.

that said, its not like Caesar had a huge amount of troops with him, only 10 out of around 70-90 that were active at the time- a ceaser being crushed at that time, isnt somthignt hat woudl actually effect the military of the republic too much, it would just cause th epeople who would eventually join his legions to join different ones, possibly sooner because fo the more urgent want (note- thats want- not need) and the repositiong os legions as new govenors come in and take his old provinces, bringin thier troops along with them.

Map for the Roman scenario:

Xen said:

the celts couldnt begin rading Italy again- even if ceasar was crushed, the Gauls would still have thier hands full with the germanic invasion that actually caused the guals to invite rome into the territory in the first place; notto mention siginifcent maounts of gallic tribes woudl stil be allied to Rome, creating the buffer between Italy, and Gaul proper.

that said, its not like Caesar had a huge amount of troops with him, only 10 out of around 70-90 that were active at the time- a ceaser being crushed at that time, isnt somthignt hat woudl actually effect the military of the republic too much, it would just cause th epeople who would eventually join his legions to join different ones, possibly sooner because fo the more urgent want (note- thats want- not need) and the repositiong os legions as new govenors come in and take his old provinces, bringin thier troops along with them.

Click to expand...

Xen, in this case, I don't really care.

I made the above for fun, and for a good NES, not for a thourough historical analysis, since I don't want to bother to research it all.

Amenhotep7 said:

Or, what if Carthage had began colonizing Italy instead of Sicily? It's possible...

Click to expand...

no treally- Carthage never actually colonized anything until after greeks had laredy soldified thier hold in souther Italy, and the italians had formed thier own nations; its also note worthy that carthge woudl have nbever doen such a thing, because animosity between them and the greeks was never endign, and they needed th emilitary support of nations like Eturia, and eventually Rome to to keep thier flanks agiast the greek- colonizing Italy was both non-profitable, a waste of military resources by the time carthage was able to do it, but woudl also alienate the italian nations and tribes- somthign that many conqoured greek cities in souther italy learned the hardway from the oscans and samnites wasnt a good idea at all...

North King said:

Xen, in this case, I don't really care.

I made the above for fun, and for a good NES, not for a thourough historical analysis, since I don't want to bother to research it all.

Click to expand...

i doubt it woudl be a goo nes unless thier were real changes all across the board; not just in france

Xen said:

i doubt it woudl be a goo nes unless thier were real changes all across the board; not just in france

Click to expand...

*sigh*

I wish you could read it instead of making a sweping denounciation. The Roman Empire is completely different, the Parthians are still around, and the Greeks have made a resurgence. It is an era with many powers, instead of just Rome.

I mean mean form the atlantic ocean to the yellow sea, though I was wrong in assumign it was just france

Alternate History #1093:

Saddam Hussein chokes on his food while eating lunch on may 19, 1999 (random date really), causing a power struggle to erupt with in Iraq. The nation quickly destabalizes and civil war erupts across the nation. president Clinton and the European powers are unwilling to help the nation. When the Kurds declare a free state in June, Turkey begins tooccupy the region.

The united States finally reacts and begins to use pressure to have Turkey back down. US air strikes hit Qusay Hussein's forces, which have gained control of most of today's "Sunni Triangle." Shortly afterward as Iraq is split into 3 new nation, Kurdistan in the north, the Republic of Iraq in the center and the Islamic Republic of Iraq in the south. The destabalized nations ebcome breading grounds for terrorists.

Well, it's just a thought

Has this thread, to this date, produced a single succesful NES?

So much to post...

The "Syracuse" argument:

who said he was anything other then a myth-a wonderful story, possible based on what seems to be the etruscans orginateing from anatolia, and sailign over to Italy, but its iffy; though the story, which was regadrded as true by Greek historians by the etruscan orgins, could easilly have been an impulse for the story of Aeneas; after all, the Homerian epic never actually detials the fall of Troy mind you, that was actually an addition added on later, in the odyssey- the illiad ends at the body of hector being given back to Priam, and never actually says who won the war.

Click to expand...

That's just what I mean. But I think that the fact that Troy (or something like that) existed at some point and later ceased to exist is more or less an established one.

though it spointless

Click to expand...

Most arguments with you (or with me. Moreso between the two of us) seem to be pointless, no?

---

Warman's findings/ideas.

amazing alternate history, though I dobt Stalin would do that, he never suspected Hitler even on the eve on Barbarossa.

Click to expand...

He DID suspect Hitler. But he thought Hitler would want to finish off Britain first, and expected him to bog down there until "Operation Bura" could begin.

I just got to part 10, where Germany makes a deal with Iraq. Considering Iraq was under British rule I find this highly improbable and would like to throw this out the window

Click to expand...

You might be interested to know that such a deal ALMOST happened in the real world. Unfortunately, the German military advisor's plane got shot down when he was about to begin training the Iraqi puppet king's army.

Saddam Hussein chokes on his food while eating lunch on may 19, 1999 (random date really), causing a power struggle to erupt with in Iraq. The nation quickly destabalizes and civil war erupts across the nation. president Clinton and the European powers are unwilling to help the nation. When the Kurds declare a free state in June, Turkey begins tooccupy the region.

The united States finally reacts and begins to use pressure to have Turkey back down. US air strikes hit Qusay Hussein's forces, which have gained control of most of today's "Sunni Triangle." Shortly afterward as Iraq is split into 3 new nation, Kurdistan in the north, the Republic of Iraq in the center and the Islamic Republic of Iraq in the south. The destabalized nations ebcome breading grounds for terrorists.

Click to expand...

Interesting...

What if, during the Gulf War, the Americans allowed Israel into the Coalition? I mean - what if Bush the Older was as giftless with diplomacy as, say, Wilhelm II? If Israel joins on the American side, its likely that Saddam Hussein would have managed to turn the Gulf War into a real Jihad, facing USA, Israel, UK and Turkey with Iraq, Syria and perhaps even Egypt (and probably Libya). Add to it the pro-Saddam riots in Jordan and Saudi Arabia... That will have the potential to become World War Three, though possibly it will rather be a regional conflict. A HUGE regional conflict, with a lot of nastiness involving strategic bombardment, armored blitzkriegs, scorched earth tactics, urban fighting, guerrila warfare and serious casualty lists.

---

About Vercingetorix and other Amen ideas:

What if Vercingetorix's rebellion succeeded? Say, he got more tribes to rebel with him, or he simply outdid Caesar startegically (gasp!)?

Click to expand...

Unlikely. Even if he did suceed, Pompey or anybody else would just walk in later and conquer the Gauls. BUT, if he doesn't, Rome MIGHT remain a republic.

Or, what if Carthage had began colonizing Italy instead of Sicily? It's possible...

Click to expand...

No it isn't.

If only because there was no serious reason, and it would have been much easier with a base in Sicily than from Sardinia.

What if Harald Hardrada had succeeded in conquering England?

Click to expand...

I posted something similar (not completely). Nobody noticed.

My idea was that Harald wins at Stamford Bridge, but fails to win decisively against William of Normandy. As a result, after several years of war over England, it is decided to divide it along Humber. Harald gets "Northumbria", William gets "Mercia".

Norway proceeds to build a northern superpower - drawing on a larger surviving army and new sources of income, Norway defeats the Danes who were threatening Norway during the time period, and managed to include Denmark into their realm. As on 1200 AD, there is a Quadruple Kingdom of Norway, Northumbria, Denmark and Scotland under the Hardrada dynasty.

Norman Mercia, due to butterflies, does not merge with Acquitaine, and thus Mercia still has Normandy, and concentrates on conquest of Wales and Ireland. By 1200, they accomplished those goals, and are preparing for a rematch against the Norwegians.

Acquitaine becomes a local powerhouse, and an Anjou king ascends to the French throne eventually, after a long dynastic strife and with assistance of... Friedrick Barbarossa. In exchange for this assistance (and promises of minor concessions, along with royal marriages), Anjou France promises to support the HRE in its wars in Italy. And support it does. Long story cut short, in 1200, Henry VI (due to butterfly reasons he lived somewhat longer) is in charge of a Holy Roman uberEmpire, stretching from Pommerania to Sicily, including strong Imperial rule in Northern Italy. HRE is far more centralized then historically. The Papal States are still independant, but are confined, virtually, to the city of Rome and its immediate surroundings. However, HRE also has many enemies, including their former allies in France. HRE is huge and powerful.

Sweden is seriously weakened by a war with the Norwegians that had no real result.

The Byzantine Empire managed to concentrate on the Balkans, regaining many territories much more easily and gaining significant influence in Hungary. Who knows to what will this influence lead...

If anybody starts such a NES, I will happily play Holy Roman Empire, unless Stalin shows interest in it.

Has this thread, to this date, produced a single succesful NES?

Click to expand...

I think there was such an occasion once, with Cuivienen. As for succesful... Unfortunately, I didn't follow it, and it does seem to have died out at some point. But what NES doesn't?

I, as already said before, would only welcome any NES set in almost any of the settings throughout this thread.

I would still LOVE to play a dark ages/mideval NES as a resurged western ROman empire with belisarius at the lead

@das- the only bone I have to pick with you on that entire lien fo though is Belisarius giving up the mantle of the western empire- I think he woudl have done, i fhe had relaized that while he had all th eloyalty in the world to justinian, Justinian had no love or loyalty back, he woudl have kept the imperial insignia (never found out exactley what that was mind you) the signified the true western (and ewastern for that matter) Roman empire, that was taken back to constantinople after the conquest- though ubnfortunatenlly, I have never seen a mention of them before, or after, that date- probably either destroyed, or locked away inside a british or american museums basement, because no one knows what it is.