Altered Maps VI: Xorda Gene Bombs.. going from Earth to Mobius
- Thread starter Tani Coyote
- Start date
- Status
More than century after a Mongol named Temujin fell off his horse, the Empire which the Khwarezmian Shahs had built began to unravel. An ill-advised adventure into Egypt had ended in defeat outside the walls of Cairo, and the Khwarezmians fled back into Palestine, where they were defeated at Ain Jalut in 1260. The Shahs managed to hold on to their empire for another 40 years, when another failed attempt to conquer Egypt by the staggeringly incompetent Ala ad-Din Muhammad III sparked rebellion. A mutinous Kurdish general rallied his troop and set himself up as Governor of Mosul, and soon conquered large swathes of Kurdistan and Syria. In Najaf, a certain al-Hakim proclaimed himself Sultan of a Shia dynasty in southern Mesopotamia. The Mameluke-Crusader land grabbing race in Palestine started another Crusade. The Mamelukes claimed victory as the Crusaders never capture Jerusalem, though they did gained a couple of strongholds on the Levantine coast, while a resurgent Georgia rebuilt its empire from a century before. The Khwarezmians were driven back into Persia, and while the cities of Central Asia still nominally accept the overlordship of the Shah, they had all but broken free from Isfahan's control.
Mathalamus
Emperor of Mathalia
More than century after a Mongol named Temujin fell off his horse, the Empire which the Khwarezmian Shahs had built began to unravel. An ill-advised adventure into Egypt had ended in defeat outside the walls of Cairo, and the Khwarezmians fled back into Palestine, where they were defeated at Ain Jalut in 1260. The Shahs managed to hold on to their empire for another 40 years, when another failed attempt to conquer Egypt by the staggeringly incompetent Ala ad-Din Muhammad III sparked rebellion. A mutinous Kurdish general rallied his troop and set himself up as Governor of Mosul, and soon conquered large swathes of Kurdistan and Syria. In Najaf, a certain al-Hakim proclaimed himself Sultan of a Shia dynasty in southern Mesopotamia. The Mameluke-Crusader land grabbing race in Palestine started another Crusade. The Mamelukes claimed victory as the Crusaders never capture Jerusalem, though they did gained a couple of strongholds on the Levantine coast, while a resurgent Georgia rebuilt its empire from a century before. The Khwarezmians were driven back into Persia, and while the cities of Central Asia still nominally accept the overlordship of the Shah, they had all but broken free from Isfahan's control.
i assume Byzantium is more or less in good shape?
Byzantium still gets invaded, sacked and partitioned as in OTL. Constantinople is back in Byzantine/Nicaean hands by this stage though.
My timeline concentrates on the Middle East, since that's arguably where the Mongols had most influence/did most damage.
So China dropped off the face of the earth? I see.
Mathalamus
Emperor of Mathalia
aww. oh well. Byzantium was doomed to die by that time anyway...
TheLastOne36
Deity
- Joined
- Jan 17, 2007
- Messages
- 14,045
More than century after a Mongol named Temujin fell off his horse, the Empire which the Khwarezmian Shahs had built began to unravel. An ill-advised adventure into Egypt had ended in defeat outside the walls of Cairo, and the Khwarezmians fled back into Palestine, where they were defeated at Ain Jalut in 1260. The Shahs managed to hold on to their empire for another 40 years, when another failed attempt to conquer Egypt by the staggeringly incompetent Ala ad-Din Muhammad III sparked rebellion. A mutinous Kurdish general rallied his troop and set himself up as Governor of Mosul, and soon conquered large swathes of Kurdistan and Syria. In Najaf, a certain al-Hakim proclaimed himself Sultan of a Shia dynasty in southern Mesopotamia. The Mameluke-Crusader land grabbing race in Palestine started another Crusade. The Mamelukes claimed victory as the Crusaders never capture Jerusalem, though they did gained a couple of strongholds on the Levantine coast, while a resurgent Georgia rebuilt its empire from a century before. The Khwarezmians were driven back into Persia, and while the cities of Central Asia still nominally accept the overlordship of the Shah, they had all but broken free from Isfahan's control.
What about Cilicia and Greater Georgia? I don't know exactly how it formed, but would it's birth be effected by Temujin falling off his horse?
CheeseWalrus
Warlord
because the US would lose most of its GDP.
Are you, like, a Calvinist or something?
Well, that too.
I'll deal with China in a moment.
In this timeline Georgia was swallowed up by Khwarezm after a bloody war. OTL Tbilisi was captured by Khwarezmians who moved west after Transoxiana was laid waste by Genghis Khan. Granted, the Mongols had earlier defeated the Georgians in a battle which weakened them significantly before the Khwarezmid invasion.
Mathalamus
Emperor of Mathalia
no idea what that is. a christian branch? if so, no.
Calvinists believe in predestination. Dachs has an affinity for the Byzantines and was thus commenting that there was no reason they were "doomed" to fall apart.
Mad Man
Your lord and master
How about because nothing lasts forever
Winner
Diverse in Unity
Mathalamus
Emperor of Mathalia
the Byzantines at 1204 and beyond is just ruined. there's no chance that it would survive beyond a few hundred years. so they were in act, doomed.
..kind of like Nazi Germany was doomed from the moment they attacked Russia, or the confederate states being doomed the moment they declared war on the Union.
wiki article about Schengen I think, or somewhere nearby.
Technically, this is altered, but only in a few relatively minor ways:
Spoiler The Greek Oikoumene, Eastern Part :
Since neither the Nazi state nor the traitor States, as much as it pains me to admit it, were inherently screwed even at those points in their mutually evil history, I assume you agree with me about the noninevitability of Byzantine defeat and destruction? For somebody as interested in alternate history as you, it's almost surprising to see you claim so steadfastly that the Byzantine state was doomed to meet its end two and a half centuries before it actually did so. The claim in itself is a ludicrous one, just like Gibbon deciding that the 'decline and fall of the Roman Empire' took up 13 of the 15 centuries of that empire's existence. The label becomes meaningless.
Mathalamus
Emperor of Mathalia
Technically, this is altered, but only in a few relatively minor ways:
Spoiler The Greek Oikoumene, Eastern Part :
Since neither the Nazi state nor the traitor States, as much as it pains me to admit it, were inherently screwed even at those points in their mutually evil history, I assume you agree with me about the noninevitability of Byzantine defeat and destruction? For somebody as interested in alternate history as you, it's almost surprising to see you claim so steadfastly that the Byzantine state was doomed to meet its end two and a half centuries before it actually did so. The claim in itself is a ludicrous one, just like Gibbon deciding that the 'decline and fall of the Roman Empire' took up 13 of the 15 centuries of that empire's existence. The label becomes meaningless.
the Soviet union can easily outproduce Nazi Germany and his allies. they have more population, way more land, and more natural resources. even if Hitler manage to take Leningrad, Moscow and stalingrad, the Soviet union will try to recapture those cities.
similarly the Union outproduces the Confederates. if they did take Washington DC, the union will just recapture it.
if the 4th crusade didn't happen im fairly sure Byzantium will still die off. they have too little territory, manpower and resources to make a miraculous recovery. even with assistance.
If economic strength were the only reason states won military conflicts, I would ask you to explain the issue of the Vietnam War, the Seven Years' War, the Balkan Wars, and the Chinese Civil War.
By 1261 they made their 'miraculous' recovery, not least because the Fourth Crusade didn't actually damage the Byzantine state that much. Which they also seem to have managed in kangaru's ATL. The Byzantine state was militarily and economically the strongest of all its neighbors (save, economically, for the Venetians and possibly the Genoese). It successfully faced down multiple attacks from one of the most powerful centralized military machines in Europe. I truly do not see where you are coming from.Mathalamus said:
- Status
Similar threads
