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
Rome would get torn apart because of all the soldiers who practiced Mithraism without much public support; it would've had it's own wars of religion, between the frontier soliders and the interior; the interior would be devastated, Rome would have fell. QED. :p
 
well, explain to me how it was- remember, christianity was bale to sprea din rome becaus eof the diaspora intiated first by the assyrians and babylonians, an docntiued, varisouslly, until thier were jewish opulation all over the empire; thus a large pool for potential converts, in a wide area, hell Rome itself is the largest, and oldest center of judaism outside the middle east- now, all this speculation comes up fromt he fac tthat jesus himself never dies, and he remaines a relitivlly local presence, andf the Romans wont bother to deal with him- dandy, this means that the jewish population in israle has to deal with jesus in a manner that dos enot infringe on the Roman governments sole right to dish out capital punishment- the bes toption woudl be exile, and likelyl outside the empire entirelly- in this case, tot he east, where the parthians, always lookign for a one-up over Rome, might just accept him, or into arabia, to spread his teachings there- without such a presence in the Roman empire, mithriasm would dominate- thier no question, the religion lasted intot he 14th centurt for christs sake (yes, bad pun intended;)) and I dar enot one theological historian will disagree with the fact that if christianity had been in away detianed from the cours eof history it has in our own time line, the males of the wester world would be mostlly mithraic.
 
North King said:
Rome would get torn apart because of all the soldiers who practiced Mithraism without much public support; it would've had it's own wars of religion, between the frontier soliders and the interior; the interior would be devastated, Rome would have fell. QED. :p

mithriasm had huge public support- thier ar emore ancient Mithriac temple sin rome then thie rhave been christian holy sites in the city from all eras combined :p
 
I'd really like to see your scenario for Nes2 III.

Patience, young one. I am still planning it out. I could say that both it and the PoD will be in Modern Age, and perhaps the start date would be 2005 AD.

I also think Stalin will really like it ;) .

---

Contempt, you don't say! Xen isn't even a little biased for Rome! ;)

Amenhotep, I think that an interesting idea is to have more numerous Nestorians. MUCH MORE NUMEROUS. But not numerous enough to be able to resist persecution and rebel. Historically, Nestorians were rather few, but managed to spread some of their influence throughout the Mongol Empire. Now, imagine what happens if Genghis Khan converts to Nestorianism, and thus instead of Il-Khanate, we will have the "Holy (Nestroian) Persian Empire", which will ally with the Crusaders, and will start crusading.

And just think of the possible "Timur's Crusade"!
 
@das

Nestorians... Maybe. But think of the alternative. Think of it: Christianity based in Persepolis or Ctestiphon. An organized, Eastern Orthodoxy/Roman Catholic-style hierarchy, sending out missionaries to Arabia, India, China, Sri Lanka, Vietnam, China, and Mongolia. Suppose Northern India, Arabia, and Mongolia convert to the "Church of Yeshuah Shahanshah". When India unites, India's Christin. And when the Mongols take over China, they convert many peoples.

Also suppose that, in 200 AD they finally make missions to the west, trying to convert Rome. Now, suppose they succeed? By 500 AD the Roman Empire (whose life has been exteded a bit, for the lack of Christianity results in no need to split the empire) has been mostly converted. Finding some of the eastern philosophies injected into the preachings of the Church of Yeshuah Shahansha not so compatible with some of their own beliefs, the Roman Catholic Church is officially formed somewhere in the 400s.

The Roman Empire falls a little bit afterward, due to the numerous barbarian invasions. However, the Barbarians don't convert till a bit afterward, as the new barbarian kings adopt the local religion (Christianity) to legitimize themselves as their rulers.

Then what of Islam? We could go in two directions here: One is to leave out Islam completely (Muhammed bercomes your run-o'-the-mill Arabian Christian), or Muhammed could take his preaching to other lands, perhaps sail eastward to China or Australia (:crazyeye: ) or southward to South Africa. Or he could try to take on the various peoples of the former Roman empire, especially in North Africa. Islam based in Carthage, anyone? :crazyeye:

Then how would have the crusades have been played out? What would have happened with the rise of the Mughals in the converted Northern India? And what would have happened with the rise of the Mongols and their acquisition of China and other places? Would Genghis Khan even dare attack Persepolis or Ctestiphon, the capital of the Church of Yeshuah Shahanshah? Would he try to legitimize it, calling the church "corrupt"? This of course would lead to a great Eastern Schism, the Temujinic Church of Yeshuah, based in Samarkand.

And speaking of a Great Schism, the same thing would still probably happen in the Catholic Church, and an Orthodox Church is formed, though where would their capital be? Who would consider Byzantium with no Constantine to have made it a seat of power? Perhaps the Eastern Orthodoxy would have been based in Athens or Corinth or Ephesus...

But perhaps the timeline I have given here is more fitting for another Alternatate History: What if Apostles had gone both directions, to Rome and to Parthia?
 
A persian christianity, I'd predict:

c. 100 much of Eastern Persia is converted to Christianity, but much of the West remains Zoroastrian, the religion proving to be very resilent and resisting most efforts of Christianity to convert it...

c. 100-400 Much the same as in our world, except that Persia has degenerated into two states, and the religious fighting between them makes the region as a whole more viatole. The Romans take advantage by permanently conquering Mesopotamia, and the christians there are persecuted and either flee to Persia or a few to Arabia.

Rome is in trouble due to the tensions between traditional polytheisms and Mithraism, and religious wars end in the Mithraic frontier guards from the Danube crushing anti-Mithraic rebellions in Italia and Hispania. German tribes take advantage of this, and invade the empire, though they are driven back at long last by Roman Legions. Britannia, though, is lost forever to British peoples themselves, and they retain the Roman civilization and become an allied state to rome, with a tenuous grip on Pictland and Hibernia.

c. 400 The Epiphthalite Huns crush the civil war ridden Persia and establish the Eastern Hunnic Khanate, while the tensions in Rome erupt as the Huns invade. More massive rebellions scythe through the nation, and the government is hard pressed to keep the invaders at bay. Fortunately, though, the Germans prove useful allies to outflank the Huns, but Greece and Italia are both ravaged before the hordes of Attila are driven back. Rome lies in a weakened state, and loses Dacia, Belgica and the Germanias to the Germans, Mesopotamia to the Eastern Huns, and Armenia to an internal rebellion. The Berbers raid far more frequently in the African territories.

c. 500 Persia manages to throw off the shackles of Hunnic domination, and Christianity is seen as a rallying point to the people. A crusade is launched to Judea, and they conquer it from the weak Roman grasp, and manage to wrest Eastern Anatolia and Egypt from it as well. The only Roman stronghold in Asia now is the Ionian Coast of Asia Minor.

This is about as far as I would go to set up an NES, however, I'll go on for the sake of speculation.

c. 600 Mohammed, influenced by the Christian refugees in his homeland, founds Islam, and tquickly unites the Arab tribes. They attack the Persian Empire en masse, taking southern Mesopotamia, Judea, Egypt, and Anatolia, but are blocked from further expansion by the heavy resistance the Persians put up. Multiple Crusades are launched from Persia, however, they are delayed by renewed attacks of the Gupta Empire (which survived since the Epiphtalite Huns focused their attacks on Persia) and the imperial expansion of Tang China. The last Crusade is launched sometime around 700, and the end result is a stalemate. Both Islam and Persia fracture into small states, while Tang China is finally forced out of their Soighidan stronghold by the Tibetians, and the Gupta are finally broken up by the same.

c. 800 India is now a patchwork of strong states based around the Deccan, the Indus, and the Ganges, The Tibetians have a large and powerful Empire. China is still ruled by the Tang, but they are fearful of rebellion and liable to collapse. Islam is split between Palestine, Arabia, Egypt, and the Berber Caliphate. The only Christian states are Isafahan, Bactria, Soghidana, and Armenia. Rome is reduced to Italia, Southern Gaul, Iberia, and Western Anatolia. Britannia is the last true Roman state, though, and controls all of Roman Britain, even up to the Antonine Wall, but with only a tenuous grip on Pictland and Hibernia, and they must deal with increasing Viking attacks. The Frankish Kingdom consists of Northern Gaul, Belgica, and the Rhine valley, while Germania is another semi civilized state centered on the Elbe. Greece is supposedly Roman, but is in reality ruled by the Goths, whose Empire extends through Thrace, Illyria, Dacia, and even some parts of Scythia. The Vikings have the most civilized nations in all of Northern Europe, including Danemark, Sweden, Norway, Rus, and nominally Hebreidia (though this is often occupied by Britannia).

Most of Europe is Mithraic (except for the Norse parts), Islam rules Egypt, Arabia, and North Africa. Christianity occupies Persia, Mesopotamia, and Armenia, though many people in the area, about 20%, are Zoroastrian, while Bactria is almost entirely Zoroastrian. The east looks roughly as it does in our world, except India is much more Buddhist than Hindu.
 
(whose life has been exteded a bit, for the lack of Christianity results in no need to split the empire)

Christianity didn't matter. Roman Empire was doomed to collapse ever since its creation, and already had a catalyst in the Year of Four Emperors. It was too shaken up to survive much longer, Christianity or no Christianity. And just what role did Christianity play in splitting up the empire?

Otherwise, nice work, both of you.
 
@das

It was Constantine's motion to create his own Christian empire in the east that drove the wedge between the respective halves of the empire. Now, had the empire remained undivided, They could have been able to last out another 50-100 years, which already deeply affects the political climate!
 
das said:
Christianity didn't matter. Roman Empire was doomed to collapse ever since its creation, and already had a catalyst in the Year of Four Emperors. It was too shaken up to survive much longer, Christianity or no Christianity. And just what role did Christianity play in splitting up the empire?

Otherwise, nice work, both of you.

what are you talkign about- the year of the 4 emperors lead DIRECTLLY to the Roman golden age as the victor of that conflict -emperor vespasian- was bale to solidiy control over the empire, and maitian it in good working order.

to say that anything is doomed from its creation, moreover, is folly- if the right choices ha dbeen (liek not putting commodus on the throne) then the empire coudl very well have survived.

as for chrsitianity splitting up the empire, you need to do some reserch das- historically constantine screwed the empire by outlawing many professions ot non-christians, including work on such needed work places liek blacksmithing, as well as government jobs- considerign this was all taking place after a major plaguehad wracked th eempire that was already crippled from an economic collpase due to debased coinage, and ti was a recipie for downfall- thier also the fact that OCnstantien intiated a few war sof religion within the Roman empire which further weakend, and crippled the empire, as usurper emperors attempted to resotre the old ways, and one, ironically, a relation of constantine, and a born chrsitian who converted to Roman polytheism, was almost successful, before he was assasinated by Chrisitians.
 
It was Constantine's motion to create his own Christian empire in the east that drove the wedge between the respective halves of the empire. Now, had the empire remained undivided, They could have been able to last out another 50-100 years, which already deeply affects the political climate!

The Empire was divided much earlier. And besides, already by then it was overstretched.

what are you talkign about- the year of the 4 emperors lead DIRECTLLY to the Roman golden age as the victor of that conflict -emperor vespasian- was bale to solidiy control over the empire, and maitian it in good working order.

Okay, perhaps I was wrong. It simply exposed some of the problems that were there since the formation of the Empire.

to say that anything is doomed from its creation, moreover, is folly- if the right choices ha dbeen (liek not putting commodus on the throne) then the empire coudl very well have survived.

Doesn't sound like folly for me. NOTHING is eternal. Let me put it this way - dinasaurs were doomed from their first appearence, because that, even if the meteorite didn't fall, they will just destroy themselves with nuclear weapons one day. ;) And besides, all dynasty-based ruling forms are bound to have many problems.

historically constantine screwed the empire by outlawing many professions ot non-christians

And thats a neccessarily worse thing then outlawing many proffessions to christians?
considerign this was all taking place after a major plaguehad wracked th eempire that was already crippled from an economic collpase due to debased coinage, and ti was a recipie for downfall

The economic collapse and the major plague is enough for downfall. An Emperor's pro Christian policies just added up to it, acting as a minor catalyst.
thier also the fact that OCnstantien intiated a few war sof religion within the Roman empire

Perhaps I really do need to do some research. WHAT wars of religion?
and one, ironically, a relation of constantine, and a born chrsitian who converted to Roman polytheism, was almost successful, before he was assasinated by Chrisitians.

Him being Julian the Apostate, whom you seem to often propagandize and who thought that he was Alexander the Great reincarnated? By that time, Christianity was well-established in Rome, his move strikes me as idiotic. Besides, his religion was not exactly the restored polytheism, although in part it was, but with a more mystical take on it.

Lets continue this fine argument. Not that it will have any results, but still interesting.
 
While we're waiting for Xen to "reply"...

Here is some food for thought.

Compare Alexander's and Napoleon's Empires. Both were built by one military mastermind, assisted by equally great generals. Both were so large that they could not be sustained. Both spanned several cultures. Both fought against virtually all enemies near them. Both advanced primarily eastwards. Note that I DO understand that there were several differences. There is no Great Britain equivalent for Alexander, and the Age of Nationalism was already beginning during the Napoleonic Period. There were many other differences. But still. Furthermore, note this: Napoleon went into Russia. Lost. Alexander went into India. Lost.

Here the differences begin - Alexander did not lose as badly, and managed to retreat, keeping his empire together. Until his death. A shame it came so quickly. Meanwhile, Napoleon lost his entire Grand Armee and was ganged up on by virtually everybody within and without his Empire.

So here are two PoDs. They are NOT 100% copies of what happened to the other conqueror, simply changes the conditions of failure.

POD for Alexander: Defeat is much worse. Alexander's army gets further into India at first, but faces horrifying attrition and begins fighting retreat, disintegrating as it goes. Alexander barely escapes, tries to reorganize his forces, but faces numerous rebellions everywhere, while Indians grab his eastern provinces, suffers defeat after defeat, eventually dies from malaria and loses his empire to Phoeniceans, Persians, Indians, Egyptians and Athenians, as well as several minor kingdoms.

POD for Napoleon: Napoleon's army does not get as far into Russia, fights some battles with mixed results, and retreats. Nevertheless, the Russians don't want to follow this up, having suffered some losses as well. Napoleon managed to defeat the Prusso-Austrian resurgence (putting some of his friends on thrones there), and took personal charge of the Peninsular Campaign, somehow improving the situation there and defeating Wellington. Suffering from the cold he caught in Russia (OOC: sorry), he died soon after in his new (if unofficial) capital of Rome. After his death, his marshalls (Bernadotte, Mortier and the like) begin fighting to carve up his Empire. Eventually, Mortier triumphs in France (plus Belgium and Germany west of Rhine) but others carve up the rest of the empire. The British exploit this by breaking up the Continental System and allying themselves to different post-Napoleonic factions, while the Russians eventually walk into Poland and parts of Germany.

Note that this is pretty much random ideas. Anybody wants to alter/continue any of those?
 
das said:
The Empire was divided much earlier. And besides, already by then it was overstretched.
overstretched for that period of time- if it was the ealry empire, they could have doen a lot more expansion



Doesn't sound like folly for me. NOTHING is eternal. Let me put it this way - dinasaurs were doomed from their first appearence, because that, even if the meteorite didn't fall, they will just destroy themselves with nuclear weapons one day. ;) And besides, all dynasty-based ruling forms are bound to have many problems.
one can only say that nothing is eternal if and when the universe ends- untilt hen, we know not that answer

that said, fi anything, the Empire was hardley dynastic- the closest thing to a real dynasty were strings of rulers related to each othe rby marrige- the way that the empire was supposed ot new successor was by th eold emperor choosing[/i] a successor, based out of a pool of avaibile, qualified candidates- thats why Tiberius for instance, became ruler- unfortunatelly, all more qualified candidates had died, camapighing for the attention fo AUgustus- its also why the pax Romana was so good- because, starting with nerva, each emperor adopted hsi choosen next ruler as his "son", and willed him th eempire- ensureing a smooth transition of power.


And thats a neccessarily worse thing then outlawing many proffessions to christians?
Despite th epopular belife that chritians were treate dlike dogs all the time, they werent- they were generally left alone, though somtimes cam eunder purges by local governments- for if the Romans had truelly wanted christianity dead, it woudl have been- th e abilit yof th eempire to, even late in its hsitory, switch to a new religion that was relitivlly minor before, an dmake it a naitonal religion shows this well enough, dosent it.

The economic collapse and the major plague is enough for downfall. An Emperor's pro Christian policies just added up to it, acting as a minor catalyst.
well, if you call alienateign that last stand between the empires success, and th eempires downfall- the devotelly mithraic army as "minor" then i suppose your right- but since it hardley a minor point, christianity cant be hailed as soem minor pitfall in the downfall of the empire; it had major impacts.



Perhaps I really do need to do some research. WHAT wars of religion?
apperntlly, more then one man pinned his hopes to take up the purple by crusadeing to restore the old fiaht

[.quote]
Him being Julian the Apostate, whom you seem to often propagandize and who thought that he was Alexander the Great reincarnated? By that time, Christianity was well-established in Rome, his move strikes me as idiotic. Besides, his religion was not exactly the restored polytheism, although in part it was, but with a more mystical take on it.[/quote]
it was heavilly influenced by Mithriasm- and, idiotic or not, he was rather successful, until his untimelly death, wasnt he?
 
@das

Brilliance on those Alternate Historical timelines! Brilliance, I say! I say we begin crafting a map!
 
overstretched for that period of time- if it was the ealry empire, they could have doen a lot more expansion

Overstretched and stagnating. And corrupt.

one can only say that nothing is eternal if and when the universe ends- untilt hen, we know not that answer

Lets assume it does end. Nevertheless, do notice that no nation existed from 4000 BC to 2004 AD.
that said, fi anything, the Empire was hardley dynastic- the closest thing to a real dynasty were strings of rulers related to each othe rby marrige- the way that the empire was supposed ot new successor was by th eold emperor choosing[/i] a successor, based out of a pool of avaibile, qualified candidates- thats why Tiberius for instance, became ruler- unfortunatelly, all more qualified candidates had died, camapighing for the attention fo AUgustus- its also why the pax Romana was so good- because, starting with nerva, each emperor adopted hsi choosen next ruler as his "son", and willed him th eempire- ensureing a smooth transition of power.


A smooth transmition of power? Xen... I do hope you know it was far from being always smooth.
Despite th epopular belife that chritians were treate dlike dogs all the time, they werent- they were generally left alone, though somtimes cam eunder purges by local governments- for if the Romans had truelly wanted christianity dead, it woudl have been- th e abilit yof th eempire to, even late in its hsitory, switch to a new religion that was relitivlly minor before, an dmake it a naitonal religion shows this well enough, dosent it.

No gladiators here... ;)

I doubt that Constantine wanted all polytheists dead. For one thing, he only converted upon death.

well, if you call alienateign that last stand between the empires success, and th eempires downfall- the devotelly mithraic army as "minor" then i suppose your right- but since it hardley a minor point, christianity cant be hailed as soem minor pitfall in the downfall of the empire; it had major impacts.

Major impacts on the process of the downfall. The thing is, Roman Empire, as it was, was unlikely to survive much longer.
apperntlly, more then one man pinned his hopes to take up the purple by crusadeing to restore the old fiaht

Uh... Can you be more specific?

he was rather successful, until his untimelly death, wasnt he?

No, he wasn't. His primary policy was the removal of Christianity. That was somewhat enforced, but it was cancelled immediatelly after his death.
 
I am revisiting a topic once brought up earlier in this thread: What if Belisaurus had accepte the throne of the western empire offered to him by the Ostrogoths? And what if he had won the ensuing civil war with Justinian's Byzantine Empire? Would this have been Rome's second chance at empire?

Red: Rome
Dark Red: Byzantium
Pink: Franks
Orange: Alemanni
Yellow: Burgundians
Dark Blue: Visigoths
Bright Green: Suebii
Purple: Basques
Sky Blue: Saxons
Green: Celts/Britons (Will divide them up later.)
 

Attachments

  • romeunconquered.GIF
    romeunconquered.GIF
    9.9 KB · Views: 79
das said:
Overstretched and stagnating. And corrupt.
Lets assume it does end. Nevertheless, do notice that no nation existed from 4000 BC to 2004 AD.
[/quote]
well, ethiopia sorta comes close ;)

A smooth transmition of power? Xen... I do hope you know it was far from being always smooth.
well it was- fromthe time of nerva tot he time of COmmodus thier was smooth transition of power


No gladiators here... ;)

I doubt that Constantine wanted all polytheists dead. For one thing, he only converted upon death.
dosent matter.


[.quote]
Major impacts on the process of the downfall. The thing is, Roman Empire, as it was, was unlikely to survive much longer.[/quote]
I have no care for how the empire 'as it was" surviving- i'm talking about Rome as a continus political entity, existiting in any official form

[/quote]
Uh... Can you be more specific?
[/quote]
no.

No, he wasn't. His primary policy was the removal of Christianity. That was somewhat enforced, but it was cancelled immediatelly after his death.
A)I said until his death
B)the western rpovinces sure seemed to- i wa slooking over amazon.com earlyer today, and saw a book now out of print, and frustrainglyl unabaible telling of the survival of "pagan" religions in western europe as local majorties well into the time of chalemagne, and beyond; so whiel he didnt turn back the entire empire, he certinally made a pretty big splash,a t leas tin the western empire
 
Amenhotep7 said:
I am revisiting a topic once brought up earlier in this thread: What if Belisaurus had accepte the throne of the western empire offered to him by the Ostrogoths? And what if he had won the ensuing civil war with Justinian's Byzantine Empire? Would this have been Rome's second chance at empire?

I claim rome!
 
@Xen

LOL. I may pursue this next NES. But first I suggest we have a scholarly discussion here. Could rome feasibly rise from the ashes under Belisaurus? Especially with angry Visigoths and Franks breathing down his neck?
 
Back
Top Bottom