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
Related WI: What if the Black Sea never turned into a sea? There is a popular theory that the Great Flood stories come from the "Black Lake" turning into sea, before which it was slightly smaller and its waters were fresh, leading to a lot of tribes living near it.

As for "no Mediterranean", I'd say that huge amount of civilizations will never get to exist. On the other hand, it is likely that an advanced civilization will appear in Brittany, so there would be a North-Baltic sea "civilized lake" like the Mediterranean in OTL, while Assyria will reign supreme in the "Middle East" to the east from the Mediterranean Desert. Further east, Assyria will be challenged by the Mauryans, so Indian Ocean will be another concentration of civilizations, and, thus eastern coast of Subsaharan Africa.
 
NOW you will learn why it was called the "Great Age":

Europe was, naturally, filled with warfare. As always.

Scotland emerged into the new century out of several bloody feuds degenerating into a civil war. Luckily, King Jacob VI was an able administrator. He rebuilt the economy, converted Northern Ireland, fought back an English incursion and founded Scotland’s first colony. No doubt, he was one of “the Greats”, though he rarely was named such - more often, he was called Jacob the Just, or Jacob the Bearded. The English lost the Irish War to him (in part due to Jacob's declaration of religious tolerance), allowing Scotland to grab Southern Ireland as well.

The Lisbon Alliance collapsed during that time, due to the Great Indian Ocean War which pitted Netherlands, Castille and France against England and Portugal. Most fighting took place in Indian Ocean territories and other colonies, but some spilled over to the Continent, such as the Dutch-Castillian victory at the Tagus Delta over the main Portuguese fleet (bolstered by the English) and the Castillian siege of Lisbon, barely fought back by the Portuguese forces.

Henri VI, named, as one might expect, the Great had all intentions to make France the new Greatest Power, thinking the Jagiellons to be decaying. The First Lithuanian War persuaded him in the need of a different policy. He allied with the Jagiellons, and prepared for a new, grandiose campaign. The fate of France and Europe, in his opinion, was to be decided in Italy. His campaigns had Papal support at first, as he ousted the Guise dynasty from Italy city by city in a three-year campaign. After keeping all the territory he gained, though, he antagonized the Pope and Venice. This started the Sixth Italian - or Second Lithuanian - War (1719-1724). During it, French forces, after a lengthy siege, looted Rome itself, winning Henri the hatred of all remaining French Catholics and those abroad, and even some Protestants protested the “rape of Rome” - including Leonard d’Auttervile, one of the chief humanitarians of the 18th century who compared Henri with Alarich. Soon after Rome was taken, Venice launched yet another counteroffensive that threatened Henri VI’s supply lines. The Jagiellon Empire entered the war then, and the Polish-Hungarian-Bohemian-Austrian forces, led by the very old Marshall Krapiwecki himself, besieged Venice. After taking the city, Krapiwecki had to confront a Venetian-Papal-Swiss mercenary-Italian rebel force at Mantua in 1723. That battle was thought by some to be Krapiwecki’s greatest triumph - and his last one. The entire Venetian-Swiss forces were utterly crushed by a relatively small detachment of Krapiwecki’s forces, while the rest kept down a rebellion in Venice and prevented the other forces from getting to the Venetian lines. Krapiwecki, unfortunately, was wounded in the battle and died on his way to meet Henri VI. Soon after, his army was recalled - the anti-Jagiellon Coalition resumed its assault, and though the German princes were distracted to the western front, Swedes and Russians were attacking once again. The Polish forces had just one more grand triumph during this war, though, having seized Helsinki in a surprise attack. Henri VI was fought to a standstill at Saarbrucken, but was not dismayed as he cared little for Rhine.

The Treaty of Vatican had France take all Italian lands, Poland take the Venetian lands minus Lombardia (which became independant), and status quo elsewhere. The destruction of the Venetian Republic and the Italian Kingdom was momentous and ground-breaking, as it undid much of the balance in Italy.

In 1730, the North German princes formed a new league - the Hamburg, or Protestant, league. The Protestant Confederation arose from it soon after, under the leadership of Palatinator Adolph the Great who also was the hero of Saarbrucken. Truth be said, he was an average commander, but a brilliant diplomat and statesman.

Sweden and Denmark-Norway were pretty much left out in the “Great” monarch scene, yet those were still the times of prospering trade, improving relations and so on, that made Scandinavia the “most peaceful part of the world” - if one does not count Finland... but more on that under the Third Lithuanian War.

The Jagiellon Empire was ruled by Valdemar III, who hoped to make himself another one of "the Greats". Unfortunately, his surname was "the Fat", and even that was merciful to him... Valdemar III was not as incompetent as is popularily believed, but lack of luck led to his defeat in the Third Lithuanian War.

Russia and Ottoman Empire were both working on reorgonizing and modernizing themselves. Unfortunately, while the former received assistance from its traditional English and Danish allies, the latter only received (occasional) support from Henri VI who was wary of Aragon threatening his positions in Italy by seizing more of North Africa. Though both were modernizing, under Suleyman II and Mikhail III respectively (both of them "Great"), they were doing so differently - Russia by inviting foreign, primarily English and Danish, nobles and scholars, while the Ottomans, by trying to adopt the foreign advances almost by themselves. Russia was advancing more slowly and less radically, but did not stop, while the Ottoman Empire encountered iternal and external differences, as Aragonese and Persian forces begun assaulting the Empire again and the Janissaries were constantly mutineeing and rebelling in Constantinople itself...

Third Lithuanian War marked the end of the Jagiellon supremacy in Eastern Europe, though failed to break up the Empire. The war, naturally, had little to do with Lithuania, save for the fact that some fighting took place there as well. It started in 1743, shortly after Mikhail III the Great's death - him having achieved a reorganization of the Russian military and political structure, an emancipation of the serfs and several victorious wars, including the Crimean War against the Turks. His son, Mikhail IV, was determined to defeat the only "enemy of the Rus" whom his father did not defeat - the Poles. Mikhail III worked tirelessly to form a powerful coalition of Russia, Sweden, Denmark-Norway, England, Protestant Confederation and even France, after Mikhail III pointed out that Polish Venice is an exellent location from which to invade French holdings in Italy. Bavaria strayed away, though, fearing the "Orthodox-Protestant Conspiracy", and even allied with the Poles.

Mikhail IV was very proud of the army he commanded during the Crimean War, he saw it to be just as good - if not better - then that of France, and was very eager to test it out. So, when in July 1743 a Finnish rebellion begun in Helsinki, Mikhail was quick to "find" evidence that the Jagiellons were at least distantly connected to it. That was a violation of the Treaty of Vatican, and thus Sweden had to declare war on the Jagiellon Empire. Poles found out the hard way that they had only two allies left, Bavaria and Aragon, and the latter couldn't do much but tie up some French forces.

The Russian army was, naturally, not on the level of the French one, but a lot better then what the Polish commanders expected. This horrible underestimation of the enemy has costed the Polish army several near-catastrophic and fully-catastrophic defeats: at Rovno, Revel, Riga, Kiev, Kherson, Uman and Orsha, in the first two years of the war. However, the Poles recovered from this later on. Meanwhile, the Polish forces landed in Helsinki again, to assist Vaako and his rebels.The rebellion was spreading through Finland, and the Swedish forces were totally unprepared for any war, especially for a guerrila one.

The French army tried to seize Venice, but Lombardy too allied with the Poles after the French tried to move through its lands, and thus General Rousselle was forced back by a Jagiellon-Lombardian-Bavaria army. A second French expedition seized Milan, but failed to advance into Venice due to supply reasons. The Franco-Protestant forces broke through Bavarian lines at Kaiserslauten (in 1747) and invaded Bavaria itself, pillaging the countryside. Much as Adolph was not interested in getting a sizeable Catholic minority, he was bent on unifying at least those parts of Germany that were not under Polish rule.

From 1748 on, the Jagiellons attempted to regain initiative. They stopped the Russian advance on the river Venta in Latvia, although elsewhere, they lost huge amounts of territory, and the remaining Cossacks were rebelling. Indeed, much of southeastern and southern Polish possessions were as good as lost. And lost they were. Steadily, now with Russian support, the Swedes were pushing back the Finnish rebels, and the rebelllion was crushed by 1751. Vaako made a very good martyr, though, and since then rebellions in Finland will continue until it finally achieved independance... but more on that MUCH later on.

Bavaria utterly collapsed in 1752, after its king died. As per the agreement, Protestant Confederation now annexed Bavaria as well. In return, it signed an alliance with France and agreed to divide Switzerland with it in the near future. Aragon left the war by then. Bohemian and Austrian Protestants were rebelling. Horrified at the sight of his crumbling empire, Valdemar abdicated and fled, without naming a successor. The Council of Regents was assembled, and signed peace with the anti-Jagiellon coalition. Jagiellon Empire was preserved due to Arkadiusz' diplomatic skills, but the Treaty of Lublin led to loss of Pommerania (to Protestant Confederation), Venice (to France), Livonia, much of Ukraine and all of the remaining "Greatrussian" territories (ethnic Russian territory, much of the OTL European Russian Federation) (to Russia, obviously enough). Protestant Confederation has now unified all the few remaining independant German states, and declared itself Germany, abolishing the Holy Roman Empire. This new Germany was a parliamentary monarchy (much like OTL England at the same time), and not as much military-based as it was city-based and industry-based.

The Jagiellon Empire was badly wrecked, yet its four kingdoms remained unified, for the moment at least. Poland was the only Catholic majority kingdom of the Empire, and Catholicism's state-imposed predominance seemed to prove that it was, indeed, the Polish Empire. Severe strife came after the war, as the Regents fought over the country, and the Lithuanian Arkadiusz, the "Jagiellon" (note: Jagiellon Dynasty is over, but the Empire is still called Jagiellon for simplicity's sake) representative to the Lublin negotiations, emerged from it after five years as the new king. Now, Arkadiusz has definitely deserved the title of "the Great", having reorganized the empire, established religious tolerance and fortified it, in its new compact state, allowing it to survive until the Second Great War.
 
It would be accomplished by an alternate shift in the continents. What if the Straits of Gibraltar never opened up?

I think alot of the cultures would exist, but in different areas. The Dorians may have moved toward the Atlantic, strating a Hellenic culture, but altered and in a different location. There would be similarities, but think of the repercussions. How would the Age of Sail/Exploration, the Rise of Islam and Christianity had been affected if there was no Mediterranean Sea?
 
What would happen if the Straits of Gibraltar never opened up?

Southern Europe would be a virtual desert; The Medditerrenean Basin would be a vast plain, rather dry with several small salty (and some fresh) seas. The Black sea would be Fresh Water and much smaller; oweing to the massive rivers flowing into it. As a whole, people would have avoided the region except for around the lakes; the rest of the areas would be hellish deserts that no one would want to live near.

Thus we would see a concentration of the populations that became the main tribes of Southern Europe and the Eastern Middle East near the lakes of the former Med. The Black sea would become another center of civilization.

We'd wee an extended Egyptian civilization, with part of the lower kingdom becoming perhaps permanently independent. The Persians would reign supreme over the whole middle east, and those who were to become OTL's Latins and Greeks would be a scattered collection of city states near the MEdditerrenean seas. The Hellespont would become a trading hub under the rule of the Persians, between the two vast areas. The majority of Europe south of the Alps and the Carpathians would be a desert, and likely inhabited by only a few people; the cultures we would know as the Gauls and Iberians would be limited to the Atlantic Coast.

Perhaps the Viking Kingdoms would become the dominant culture of Northern Europe, and the Gauls would be their perpetual rivals, ruling over modern France, Spain, and Italy.

With the monolithic Persians ruling over the great majority of it, the Middle East would never quite become a cultural hotspot like it did in OTL. Perhaps a Roman like or a MAcedonian like culture would rise over all the citystates of the basin to challenge it, but they would never become anything more than a local phenomenon.

India and China would rise to the occasion to become the most powerful regions, China would fall gradually behind, though, due to its constant struggle with the steppe nomads and it's own unification. Thus it would be India where the great scientific revolution of the world would take place, perhaps the more philisophical and less spiritual religions of India would take precedence and Buddhism would become the world's greatest religion. Persia and Zoroastrianism would reign supreme over the middle east, as no centralized Hellenic culture had made Christianity into a world religion and thus Mohammed never got the basis for Islam.

The only serious challenges to the world order would be the steppe nomads, gradually decreasing in influence due to Viking pacification of the area through forceful means and Indian Expansion through Afghanistan. The Indian Ocean becomes the focusing point for everything; America is relatively ignored despite Viking attempts to conquer portions of it.

This leads to the Native Americans becoming a truly powerful force as they gradually coalesce into states under the influence of Viking Conquest and the occasional Indian Explorer; the Incans gradually break up into succesor states in South America while the Aztecs and Mayans dominate Central America. The Carribean islands are the resorts of some of the powerful Indian leaders, North America is a vast battleground between the four great powers; A united Iroquois nation in the Mid Atlantic/Northern Midwest, a Mississippian Culture in the central and south regions, a Californian Culture in the West, and a Viking invader culture in the Canadian regions.

The Pacific is gradually recolonized by Indian nations, which come into conflict with the Californians.

Lemme see if I can create some maps of this world...
 
Here's alternate history for you: What if Japan never attacked the United States in WW2.

1941: Japan continues offensive in China, gaining oil through trade with the United Kingdom who did not back the US's embargo, which is later withdrawn.

1942: United States enters the war against Germany, due to the fall of Moscow, despite the fact it was later retaken for good by Soviet troops.

1943: Allies invade western France. The amphibious landings were poorly planned and would have failed if not for the lack of an Atlantic Wall.

1944: Germans hold the line along the Rhine and on the relative border of Eastern Europe and pre-war Soviet Union. They continue to hold the line for some time despite increasing pressure and the fall of Norway to Allied troops.

1945: Americans drop atomic bombs on two main German strongpoints along the Rhine, allowing a breakthrough to Berlin and victory for the Allies. Japan finnally defeats the last organized Chinese resistance, bringing all of China under Japanese rule.

1946: Japanese perform an atomic test of their own thus initiating the three way Cold War. In 1947 the Soviets follow with a test of their own.

In 1950 we have a world divided 3 ways Japan-Soviet Union-US and UK. All sides are armed with nuclear weapons and the world continuously stands at the brink of war. Sounds fun, no?
 
@NK

But what would the drive had been for anyone to move to the Mediterranean basin? I think most of the people who would evolve into the mediterranean civilizations would have gone to the Atlantic, and on their way pick up Celtic culture. You'd have an infused Celto-Hellenic culture in many tribes along the coast, while the Persians are stopped only by the great desert that is the Mediterranean.

Then again, would the mediterranean be so dry? I mean, with all the rivers becoming so extended, plus the rainfall from the Atlantic, plus the moisture/rainfall from the Black and Caspian Seas, it should be rather prosperous, but no as prosperous as it was when it a sea.

Given the second scenario, I don't think competition would have been as great. There would have been much more land...
 
Amenhotep7 said:
@NK

But what would the drive had been for anyone to move to the Mediterranean basin? I think most of the people who would evolve into the mediterranean civilizations would have gone to the Atlantic, and on their way pick up Celtic culture. You'd have an infused Celto-Hellenic culture in many tribes along the coast, while the Persians are stopped only by the great desert that is the Mediterranean.

Then again, would the mediterranean be so dry? I mean, with all the rivers becoming so extended, plus the rainfall from the Atlantic, plus the moisture/rainfall from the Black and Caspian Seas, it should be rather prosperous, but no as prosperous as it was when it a sea.

Given the second scenario, I don't think competition would have been as great. There would have been much more land...

The fact that the Med was not all dry land; it had a few small seas, some large enough to be habitable by, and some fed by great rivers became fresh water. The fact that there was a lot of dry land in Southern europe contirubted to the fact that there simply WERE no people to invade Northern Europe; the ones who became our Hellenes and Latins found the Med lakes and stayed there, the ones who became our Gauls went on to the northern regions.

Map of inital cultures:
 
(Note that the Jews didn't have any Palestine to flee to; they settled instead in the Sinai/Red Sea area.)
 
umm, what exactley garuntees Celtic culture?

no med sea= no reason for the indipeuropeans- the base peoples that led to both the greeks and the celts ever coming- this emans culutres liek the etruscans and basques- and who knows what othe rnow lost cultures would have been left alone to flourish on the atlantic coastline
 
But there IS a Med Sea, or bodies of water roughly correspoding to it. I mean cultures, not ethnicities, and the North would be populated by Gallic-LIKE people; Hunter gatherers on the verge of creating city states.

How exactly did the Gauls come after the Basques and the Etruscans, anyway?
 
@Xen

Those Migant hunters from Africa and Asia had to go somewhere in Europe, right? They would have formed relatively the same cultures, no?
 
Amenhotep7 said:
@Xen

Those Migant hunters from Africa and Asia had to go somewhere in Europe, right? They would have formed relatively the same cultures, no?

No. basque, Etruscan,Minoan and even Iberian and a few southern gallic centers were significantlyl differen tin thie rrleigiosu make up- religion aloen being a major tenent of the indo-european package- if indo-europeans had never come, both language an dreligion- two of th ebigges tinflunces on culture as a whole, woudl have been different resulting ina completlyl different cultural set in those areas.
 
Xen said:
No. basque, Etruscan,Minoan and even Iberian and a few southern gallic centers were significantlyl differen tin thie rrleigiosu make up- religion aloen being a major tenent of the indo-european package- if indo-europeans had never come, both language an dreligion- two of th ebigges tinflunces on culture as a whole, woudl have been different resulting ina completlyl different cultural set in those areas.

Where did the Indo Europeans come from, out of curiousity? Might help pthe problem somewhat. :p
 
North King said:
But there IS a Med Sea, or bodies of water roughly correspoding to it. I mean cultures, not ethnicities, and the North would be populated by Gallic-LIKE people; Hunter gatherers on the verge of creating city states.

How exactly did the Gauls come after the Basques and the Etruscans, anyway?

A)the gauls themselves onyl coem about in 800 BCE; and thats goign and makign the hall-statt culture from which they orgininated rfom proper celtic (which it wasnt- it had a ways to go)- by comparison, in italy, we can see the trassesion fo the Etruscan from truelly ancient times fromt he very beginnigns of agriculture, and the estbalisment fo the villa-novan civilization

B) "gallic like" means nothign- if you meand caucasian, then yes, they woudl be gallic like; if by culture no, chances are that the indoeuropeans woudl have never really came intot he area, just liek the didtn really push into western Iberia or north africa, and gave onyl half heaterted attemps at Italy
 
North King said:
Where did the Indo Europeans come from, out of curiousity? Might help pthe problem somewhat. :p

more or less the area around modern day armenia- its dead center int he circle of thier expansion, though soem argue they came from perisa or india in the ancient times before even sumeria was established
 
Xen said:
more or less the area around modern day armenia- its dead center int he circle of thier expansion, though soem argue they came from perisa or india in the ancient times before even sumeria was established

Revision, then; The Greeks would still have been roughly where I placed them, the Gauls would still have existed, as would the Germans and Norse and Slavs. The basques would've remained independent, though, as would Iberians.
 
@Xen

Correct. So when the Armenians came out of Armenia in this alternate earth to form the indo-european cultures, they would have pushed to the coast and settled around the lakes in the Mediterranean basin. The indo-europeans would still have been there.

HEre's another thought: What if S. America and Africa didn't separate? You know how those two continents were originally, joined together. What if they didn't split? NK, can ya make a map of that?
 
Amenhotep7 said:
@Xen

Correct. So when the Armenians came out of Armenia in this alternate earth to form the indo-european cultures, they would have pushed to the coast and settled around the lakes in the Mediterranean basin. The indo-europeans would still have been there.

evidence dosent support that- the indo-europeans didnt move through areas where a semi nomadi life style was difficult- thier is no reason to belive that, base don north kings map, they woudl have ever moved farther west then greece, or farther north then the black sea.
 
In the "No Mediterranean" world, so many cultures are packed tightly together, like Egypt and Greece. Would this have birthed an Egypto-Hellenic culture?:cool:

@Xen

A nomad lifestyle in theory would be prosperous there in the basin. You have wide open plains, with tons of game, and fertile land filled with lakes and rivers full of fish. THey would have eventually settled down...
 
Back
Top Bottom