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
they werent advaced- the Chinese ere advanced; that the mongol coudl make use of a weapon isnt initself remarkable; the backwards euros certinalyl proved that once they got thier hands on it, an dif you had the will to use it, you coudl make anythign a weapon.

ask a Mongol to make a cannon, and you'll be lucky if they even knwo what your talking about.
 
When i say "mongol" is advance, i mean the nation itself, not the people. No doubt the people aren't as educated or "advanced" as chinese, but as a nation they weren't composed of only horse-riding warriors. They had lots of educated officials and whatnot too. Also a lot of chinese serving under them as well.
 
Technological advancement never was all that important; military doctrine is, and Mongol military doctrine was far more advanced then the Song one. So is the Lung one in this world, which is why they won.

Gunpowder was used more efficiently as a defensive weapon at the time, anyway.
 
my point was that the army wasn't useless, it was the administration. Of course you can say the same for your world too, and have the song fall that way. ;)
 
The officer cadre IS what important in an army; though I never did see any evidence about the competence of the lower ranks and the common Song soldiers, it doesn't matter as much as how it is led.

Remember - several Song generals surrendered to the Mongols without fighting in OTL. Others defected just like that. Frankly, I suspect that the Song were lucky to last as long as they did; although, their economical and technologic supremacy was useful as well. But one can use those only so far with such a subpar army.
 
Picture to yourself, a rocky humid land, with small villages and impressive fortified sandstone cities. An unnavigable river streams as far as an eye could see.

A great fortified city stands on that river; and behind its mound, there is an army.

Two scouts returned to their king, who was with that army. They brought good news; the enemy fell for their trap. They tricked them, and managed to escape. The king is furious; his subjects are thinking of their hides rather then of HIS greatness! Their escape might hint the enemy off!

Charioteers! Quickly, to battle! Before the Egyptians realize what happened, we must strike!

History will never be the same again...

---

It is the 13th century BC, in Syria. Syria is still divided into city states, weak ones, that traditionally were a battlefield between three empires...

To the north, the Land of Hatti, the land of great warriors, who are made particularily interesting by the fact that they spoke a "Nesite" langauge. Though in the past, Great Kings of Hatti shared their power with an elective "pankus", this tradition gradually ceased to be. Now, the kings ruled supreme.

To the south, Egypt, a land that scarcely needs any introduction, a land of the Pharaohs... and their slaves. Arrogant, Egyptians nonetheless have good reasons for it; for none is a state that is stronger then Egypt. So far.

To the east, Mitanni, a great Mesopatamian empire, and a one that was for long the ruler of Syria. It was gradually pushed back, but the Mitanni remained a significant regional power until...

...1360, when the Mitanni united Egypt and Hatti against themselves. In a series of battles, the Mitanni were crushed; Hittites sacked the capital, Wassukkani, and dynastic strife ensued with the death of the last Mitanni king. Eventually, Hittites fully took over Mitanni; this wasn't a long-term conquest, as eventually most of Mitanni lands were lost to the Assyrians, but the Hittittes didn't want them all that much. They gained what they did want - hegemony in Northern Syria.

Thus now, with Mitanni gone, it was Hatti vs. Egypt, one on one. However, without allies, neither side seemed to be stronger then the other, so stalemate ensued in Syria. Both sides incited rebels against each other, Egyptians tried to win Assyrians over to their side... but the situation remained unconclusive.

Then, a new, energetic dynasty rose to power in Egypt - the 19th dynasty. Ramses I didn't reign long, but his son Seti did, and he started campaigns into Syria, fighting Muwatallis of Hatti; the results, again, were rather inconclusive, but the order was temporarily settled on the Orontes river.

Orontes river, on whose side stood the city of Kadesh, the city that constantly switched hands. Independant, Mitanni, Hittite, Egyptian, Hittite again... It was only natural that one of the greatest battles of the ancient world, between Muwatallis' Hittites and Ramses II's Egyptians should take place at that city, in 1275 BC.

The Hittites used classical disinformation; they had "defectors" inform Ramses II that the Hittites were amassing at Aleppo, whilst they really were at Kadesh. Elated, the Pharaoh hurried to besiege Kadesh before the Hittites come. Just before the battle, the "defectors" - really Hittite spies - separated from the army and made way for Kadesh; by the time the Egyptians noticed their absence, it was too late. Re and Amon divisions were routed; Muwatallis, nervous before the battle, encouraged his forces to finish off the Egyptians before plundering, and Ramses, surrounded, was cut down. Hitittes won a crushing victory; they followed it up by defeating the Egyptian Canaanite mercenaries that came too late and by plunging headfirst towards Meggido.

What ensued in Egypt could only be described as chaos. Khaemweset I rose to power, but it was a very shaky rule, for the southern provinces rose in arms, and so did all of the Asian holdings. Libyans raided as far as Pi-Ramesse. And the Hittites exploited all this chaos well. The desert chieftains in all of Egyptian Asian holdings were only too happy to join them; the cities, such as Byblos, were not as enthusiastic about it, but upon a guarantee of their comparative autonomy, they were swayed as well. Hittite factual control was now extended as far as Gallilea; and further south, vassal states arose. Muwatallis was allegedly planning a conquest of Egypt itself when he suddenly died, to be succeeded by Mursilis III. Mursilis proved a weak ruler, and civil disorder under his rule allowed Egypt to recover. Nonetheless, the Hittites managed to fight off Assyrians in the east whilst the western border was quite "calm" - that is to say, Lycians and Thracian-Phrygian tribes had better things to do, fighting on the Trojan side in the ongoing Trojan War; Lycians in particular distinguished themselves, saving Troy from certain destruction at Greek hands (actual reasons for the draw in the Trojan War are butterfly effect plus the generally-weaker state of Greece caused by more long-term disruption of Levantine trade and by the stronger Hittites forcing would-be Phrygian Thracians to concentrate more on fighting Greeks; that said, one might also note that if we assume the "Ahhiyawans" mentioned in Hittite texts are indeed Achaens, a stronger Hittite Empire is liable to assist Trojans against this state that is perceived as strong and potentially-hostile).

Eventually, the Hittites gained another great leader - in 1252, Telepinus II the Great rose to power. By then, Khaemwese managed to restore some semblance of order in Egypt; but it was not enough to become a threat to the Hittites yet. Indeed, Telepinus cast his eyes in a different direction - to the east. Ever since the Mitanni fell, Hanigalbat, the Hittite province there, fell under Assyrian control, but eventually regained independance and begun regaining power. The Hittites traditionally encouraged this; they found a buffer state against Assyria useful. But the Assyrians were still firmly on the rise, and they felt that Hanigalbat was theirs by right. An opportunity appeared when Shalmaneser, whilst campaigning in Urartu, was sneak-attacked by Hanigalbatians, who cut him off from water supplies. His Assyrians managed to fight their way out of this predicament, though, and soon carried the war to Hanigalbat. Hittites were at first taken by surprise as Hanigalbat was crushed and subdued; then again, perhaps Telepinus wanted Hanigalbat out of the way just as well. Persuading the Babylonians that Shalmaneser was a grave threat, the Hittites soon entered the war, defeating the Assyrians at Harran; Shalmaneser tried to fight on, but he was pushed back on both "fronts", and eventually Assyria was partitioned between the victorious powers. That was in 1249. But soon, problems about how it should be divided arose, and Telepinus now started a war with Babylon. Babylonians at that time were also preoccupied with the Elamites, so they proved easier prey for the great Hittite hordes. In 1247, Hittites had conquered Babylon yet again; Elamites, meanwhile, extended their rule as far west as Ur.

It is unclear whether Telepinus intended to attack Elam as well, as the Egyptians soon gained his attention. Whilst he was in the east, they incited a major Canaanite rebellion; however, one of the conspirators, a Hebrew chieftain, gave up the secret of the rebellion to Telepinus; Hebrews still had a grudge with Egypt, and with the other Canaanites too. So Telepinus did manage to despatch a small army to defeat the rebellion whilst he was preoccupied; but it was not enough, for Egyptians decided to send their own army in as well. Hittites were defeated at Gaza, and so Telepinus had to put any more Mesopatamian ambitions on hold. Instead, he pursued war with Egypt. Egyptians since then managed to reform their army, adopting the Hittite three-man chariot. In a close-ran battle at Har Megiddo, however, the Egyptians still were defeated, and Telepinus pressed forward into Egypt. Khaemwese organized a defiant resistance, but it was no use, and by 1240 Egypt, apart from the breakaway southern provinces, was subdued. Telepinus now ruled the largest Hittite Empire ever; it was most unfortunate that he died soon after.

No, the Hittite Empire didn't fall apart immediately, though it was weakened by the rebellions and lost several periphereal holdings, especially in western Anatolia. The Empire held on to life until 1228, when Telepinus III passed away. Egypt and Assyria quickly regained independance; Phrygians captured a northwestern chunk of Anatolia; and all this scarcely mattered, for soon the entire map of the western Middle East was to be rewritten. Rewritten by the Sea Peoples.
 
So this is Kadesh without the Egyptian reinforcements coming from the north? Hmmmm.
 
Excellent... going to have some interesting effects on the Mediterranean I imagine, and there should be sufficient time left for changes in Asia as well.
 
Wait.. what about the Sea Peoples? Or the Nubians? or the Persians? or the Chaldeans?
 
So this is Kadesh without the Egyptian reinforcements coming from the north? Hmmmm.

Well, something like that. I had the Egyptians learn of the Hittite presence even later then in OTL, so Ramses sends his messangers that told the reinforcements to hurry up later as well, and so they don't come "just in time" (tm).
Wait.. what about the Sea Peoples? Or the Nubians? or the Persians? or the Chaldeans?

Oh, it will all be there, don't worry. That was but a beginning...
 
OOC: This didn't come out quite as well as hoped, and I'm not sure about some of the parts thereof, realism-wise. Constructive criticism encouraged, I guess.

Also, considering the large amount of time that I have to cover, I think such "jumps" will happen later again.

IC:

In the late 13th century BC, the world was changing. The world was moving. And as the barbarian tribes overwhelmed much of the civilized world, chaos ensued and darkness fell. The Sea Peoples ravaged and colonized the Mediterranean; the Dorians overran Greece; the Medes invaded Middle East from Central Asia, whilst the Aramaeans burst out of the Arabian Desert. Elamites, who achieved a brief hegemony in Mesopatamia, were caught between those two forces and overran.

But gradually, the world that has gone mad calmed down again, and things settled down. 900 BC is a nice, round date (not as round as 1000, perhaps, but I have my reasons); let us look on what the known world has turned into by then, from west to east.

Bronze Age has spread by this time to much of Europe, and indeed to vast other parts of Eurasia. The various Celtic tribes were really not much different from that other world, where the Battle at Kadesh resulted in a draw. But their neighbours in the south were increasingly different. The Iberian civilization in Tartessos was fairly similar to OTL... but Italy was already quite changed. Put simply; there were no "Tyrrhenians". In a different world, those Tyrrhenians would have been better known as Etruscans; but due to different history of the Sea Peoples, the "Tyrrhenians" - or, rather, the Teresians, from Teresh, settled, along with some of the Shekelesh, in the region of Sicily and North Africa, in the latter on the northeastern coast. A rudimentary Bronze Age civilization was slow to develop, but as more and more Greek and Phoenicean merchants came... As for Italy, it was still populated by... Italics, such as Umbrians. A notable exception were the Messapians in the southeast.

(I know that the proposal that Etruscans are indeed some of the Sea Peoples is not universally accepted; nonetheless, I am inclined to agree with that version. As for Etruscans settling in Carthage, a combination of butterfly effect and the generally more "southern" orientation for the Sea Peoples; see below. Incidentally, the Sardinians, or the Sherden, in this world settled elsewhere as well. Ligurians still inhabit Corsica-Sardinia as a result.)

Greece gradually settled down and came out of the Dark Age at this time. Trade, and steady colonization (of westernmost Anatolia, primarily - Cyprus was divided between the Phoeniceans and the Kizutians), took place.

Egypt just came out of the Third Intermediate Period (approx. 1180-920 BC), during which it was ruled by the Peleset and other Sea People tribes. The Peleset were gradually assimilated by the Egyptians, and, much like the Hyksos, brought some new things with themselves - most importantly, naval tradition, that allowed the strenghthening of Red Sea and Mediterranean trade. However, the Peleset still were foreigners, and as such faced growing amounts of rebellions; eventually, Amenptah overthrew them and founded the 22nd Dynasty, which immediately begun southwards expansion.

Anatolia was at the time a patchwork of states. In the northwest, Troy was an increasingly powerful empire, extending into southeastern Thrace as well. Albeit the Trojan rulers were at least quarter-Phrygian, as a legacy of a "conquest" (according to the legend, Trojans had a civil war and invited a Phrygian warlord to rule if he were to a) bring order and b) beat up the OTHER Phrygians roaming around; evidently, that Phrygian, called Gordus, did both), the Phrygians interbred with the Trojans and were effectively assimilated. Semi-tribal states of Kaska and Mysia appeared on Anatolia's Black Sea coast. Luwians in Western Anatolia were hemmed in between the Neohittites and the Greeks. As for the former... "Neohittites" were essentially the same old Hittites, with a minor infusion of Phrygian and Lydian blood and ideas, not to mention badly shaken by the collapse of the Hittite Empire. Neohittite states existed in Central and Southern Anatolia, and in Syria; it was in Southern Anatolia where the strongest of those states was beginning to rise to prominence, Kizus. Shielded by other Neohittite states, Kizus grew rich from commerce, and a cultural renaissance begun as well. Colonies were built in northern Cyprus. And already, expansion into Syria begun.

In the Levant, between the Neohittites and Egypt, the Phoenicean city states coexisted with the moderately-strong kingdom of Canaan, founded by Dhanel I in 943 from Canaanite city states and tribes. Canaan was a rich land, and as such was threatened by Egypt and the Neohittites. Dhanel fought back these invaders, and further consolidate Canaan's trade network.

In Mesopatamia, two empires were engaged in intermittent warfare: Urartu, which stretched from Ararat to Palmyra and Assyria (Assyria Proper, that is) and Chaldean Elam (the cultural heir to the Elamite Empire), in Southern Mesopatamia, Elam, and certain nearby desert regions.

To the east from the two, the Medean tribes increasingly gained strenght and coherence... their time was drawing increasingly near.
 
Comments? Questions?
 
It should be rather interesting to see what will become of the Romans with Aeneas never fleeing a burning Troy (mythological origin or not), the Etruscans in Carthage instead of nothern Italy, and the Greeks likely distracted from colonization by other nearby powers.
 
Oh, the Greeks aren't very distracted; they get away with even more colonies then in OTL, actually. The Phoeniceans, however...

...lets just say that I'm working on it.
 
What? No Carthage!? Ha ha, yes!...or at least that was what you implied, no?
 
Well, hard to build Carthage if there are Etruscans... um, Teresians there already. But if one were to chase them off a bit, ruin their unique civilization abit, one can build a city.

But it won't be called Carthage. ;)
 
Towards 650 BC, knowledge of iron working spread widely, from Subsaharan Africa to the Eurasian Steppe, from Hibernia to China. The world by then was seemingly "established", as empires and lesser states consolidated their previous gains. How little did they know of the major changes that were drawing near...

Ahem. Regardless, life went on. Tartessos was rising in importance as a trade center, and also begun slowly consolidating hold of southern Iberian and northern Mauritan coasts. Italic tribes continued to exist in disunity, occasionally allying with each other to drive off Celts or Messapians. Teresians begun establishing an urban civilization...

But all that became rather irrelevant in the last two centuries - for Greece was filled with energy and was increasingly overpopulated, and so Greeks begun colonizing Sicily and indeed Teresian lands. After coming into conflict, Greek colonists, rallying around a semi-legendary figure called Demetrios, destroyed much of the aforementioned Teresian urban civilization (admittedly, Berber nomads and internal strife had more to do with it, but the downfall of the Teresians was mostly brought about by disastrous defeats at the hands of Demetrios). Demetrios promptly died soon after, but the most important thing was achieved, and Greeks gradually settled Sicily and Teresia (OTL Tunisia). They also caused havoc in southeastern Italy, slightly later; their colonists got along fine with the Italics (profitable trade), but ran into trouble with Messapians, whom they defeated and forced to migrate westwards; this further disrupted the situation in Italy, but eventually, the Samnite-led Italic League formed and defeated Messapians in the south and Celts in the north. Tartessos was affected by the Greeks in a different way; the appearence of Greek trade outposts in Sardinia and southeastern Iberia further strenghthened the mercantile kingdom.

Meanwhile, what has transpired in Greece itself? Well... life went on (didn't I say that before?). Cities were built, they became states, cultural flourishing was beginning... Politically, the newly-democratic polis of Corinth was increasingly besieged by the tyrannies of Argos and Athens. Sparta in the far south was still recovering from the disastrous war with Argos, but it scarcely had any prospects, being surrounded by Argive allies and puppets.

Egypt was on the march, conquering Canaan and Cush (but failing to conquer Cyreneica; that was taken by the Kizians). Apart from that, Egyptian trade posts were also established as far as Adulis in Africa and Muza in Arabia. The former was especially important, as trade with the rising kingdom of Geray (OTL Axum). Similarily, in Arabia a loose state of Zafar emerged, but trade with it wasn't quite as profitable yet.

Greek colonies in Ionia were constantly threatened by the Trojans, who in fact, whilst ruled by Paris II (r. 715-677), got as impolite as to rout the Greek allied army at Assus and to subdue Greek lands in Asia Minor as far south as Ephesus. Trojans also expanded eastwards, conquering all of Bythinia and some more chunks, thus eventually taking over much of the western third of Anatolia apart from some of the coastal (Greek) regions and from the extreme southwestern Anatolia. Luwian tribes lived there, and were gradually pushed down into mediocrity by their neighbours.

Mysians briefly conquered the Kaskas, northcentral, northeastern Anatolia and Hatussas in circa 800 BC; afterwards, their empire crumbled into Mysianic statelets. But the really important consequence of all this was the fatal weakening of the northern Neohittite states. Labarnas III of Kizus (r. 798-775) used this well, uniting the south Anatolian Neohittite states with just one battle, at Tuvanuva, preceded and followed up with much intrigue. Labarnas then brought war to the Phoeniceans...

The aforementioned Phoeniceans were, at the time, increasingly expansionist and even captured the Kizian city of Lewwkaya, in Cyprus. Phoenicea was little more then an alliance of city-states, nominally headed by Tyre. To the east from Phoenicea, the semi-Neohittite (more like Aramean) state of Dimashqa was fairly powerful, stretching from Carchemish to Urusalim. Labarnas managed to win over the Dimashqans as allies, promising them sovereignity over mainland Phoenicea (sans Tyre) and a favorable settlement of the territorial disputes in northern Syria.

Phoeniceans were not very good on the land, but they had a formidable fleet; much of that fleet's advantages were annuled by the proverbial amounts of mis-coordination between the fleets of different cities. Thus, the Phoenicean navy was exterminated within two months in a series of decisive battles; Lewwkaya was reclaimed with bloodshed; the rest of Cyprus was liberated soon after as well. Dimashqans besieged the Phoenicean cities, Labarnas III personally led a seaborne assault on Tyre; within a year, the proud land of the Phoeniceans was subdued, and though with the destruction of the Dimashqan Empire by Urartians and civil strife two decades later most Phoenicean cities (apart from Tyre, naturally) regained their independance, they were crippled by this experience and gradually subdued by the Kizians, albeit remaining semi-autonomous.

Briefly before that, the Dimashqans, together with Egypt, partitioned Canaan; with the fall of Dimashqa itself, formerly-Dimashqan northern Canaan was absorbed by the Egyptians as well.

Urartu was temporarily the predominant power in the Fertile Crescent, from Lake Galilee to the Zagros Mountains, but by 650 BC it fell into civil war, with Babylonia, Elam, Carchemish (western Mesopatamia, northeastern Syria) and Kadesh (the rest of inland Syria) seceding. In the meantime, Armenian and Scythian barbarians struck from the north, looting the imperial capital - Tushpa.

That was the known civilized world as of 650 BC. It was a year earlier, in 651 BC, that slightly to the east from this known world a person known as Xaraortes came to power in Ecbatana, uniting the nearby Medean tribes under his rule after some six years of intense warfare...

OOC: Okay, some things about Asia... Firstly, changes in Indian history will most definitely come - and possibly soon. I'm having more problems with China, but the Silk Route was fairly important, so changes in regards to it will probably affect China just as well.

Questions? Comments?
 
Hrm, even stronger Hellenic culture eh? I like the part about tyranical Athens, clever that. Weak Sparta is interesting too - does that mean Argos and Athens are rivals instead? I also somehow get the feeling the situation seems such that a certain Macedonian won't come along to muck things up...

On that note, I also rather enjoy the irony of the Hittites winning the war in the PoD, only for their successors to ultimately collapse while a resurgent Egypt takes over Canaan again.

Here's to Kadesh doing something. Just a great name, that. It's the source of this big problem anyway. ;)
 
Hrm, even stronger Hellenic culture eh? I like the part about tyranical Athens, clever that. Weak Sparta is interesting too - does that mean Argos and Athens are rivals instead? I also somehow get the feeling the situation seems such that a certain Macedonian won't come along to muck things up...

Yes, quite... The Macedonians (specific ones and in general) are unlikely to do much. I'm not very sure that they exist... though they probably do. But are weaker then in OTL.
their successors to ultimately collapse

Oh, not all of them - the Kizians are Hittites just as well, though of a somehow more maritime kind.
Here's to Kadesh doing something. Just a great name, that. It's the source of this big problem anyway.

Yes, that was partially my intention.
 
Back
Top Bottom