Alternate History NESes; Spout some ideas!

[North King]

Exactly. My setting was sometime around 455, actually, right around when the Huns came, as a matter of fact.

 

[Xen]

dop note, while a conquest is entirelly possible, consolodation IMO, isnt- by that time, the majority of peaople in the east where christian, and the Sassanids firm entrenched as anti-christians (to note, they took in the last polytheists in Athens, who fled Justinian when he forciblley closed down ther last univeristy in Athens, which just happend to be run by them; the saasanids not only took them in, they gave them a settlement, and made it a term in a peace treaty that they not be disturbed, apperentlly- so while an interesting vassal state or even christian reprisal migth be felt in the balkans, the seperation from main persia by Anatolia, an dmore of note, armenia, the first nation in the world to adopt christianity as an official religion, may have been to much to ask to keep a firm hold on the territory in anatolia, the levant, and esecially armenia and Egypt.

 

[Xen]

that said,l it would be interesitng to see th reminant sof the eastern armies, as well as th emany rich merhcants, and noble familles flee the east, and come back tot he western empire- perhaps giving it s second leas eon life, by lettin git lower common taxes, re-endering the populace to the government, and moreover, beefing up its military with well trianed troops of cavalry tactics from the east.

 

[Xen]

Exactly. My setting was sometime around 455, actually, right around when the Huns came, as a matter of fact.

I would theorize the best skewing actually comes as possible out come of a Roman victory] at adrianople- historically, the Roman army thier was fresh from a victory agiasn t the persians, and was overlly cocky, same thing in this time line, but the cavalry actually pays ateention, and a victory is pulled off- the gothic reminats flee, and insite a gothic revolt amoung the goths in the empire still, and incurions by goths out side direct Roman control- this ends up takign most of the valued feild army, the troops now veteras agiasn tboth Persians and goths- the persians, findign out about this, choose this time to make thier own invasion, takign advatage of cocky, and throughlly surprised eastern empire, who now has to resort to las tminute feild levies, until the new gothic war is quelled- the persians waste little time with territories they wont be able to control, and head stright for constantinople- i havent coem up witht he remainder of a timling, but it woudl involve a persian puppet stat eof the goths in the northern balkans, indipendent psuedo roman kingdoms in th elower balkans, egypt, levant, and anatolia, an enalrged
armenian empire" who takes under its wings numerus christian communites, and a beefed up western reminat, who now has thje resources to succuessfully resist barbarian incursions, and indeed, restbalish itself ecnomicallyt becaus eof all the fleeing Roman aristocrats, and merchants where Roman rule had fallen.

 

[North King]

I think what we think here is based too much on taking OUT something. I'm putting something extra IN, a brilliant general on the scale of Shapur I, who would utterly defeat the Romans. Speaking of which, Shapur lived around then, so perhaps it isn't so implausible...

Perhaps with the Eastern Roman Empire collapsed and a large Persian army in Thrace, the Romans would be forced to maintain a field army in Greece for a time. The Persians pay the Huns to attack the Romans, and Attila needs no more encouragement. With large parts of the army far away, Aetius is defeated and Orleans is taken. Then he turns his eyes on Italia. That's what I'm working from right now...

 

[Xen]

I think what we think here is based too much on taking OUT something. I'm putting something extra IN, a brilliant general on the scale of Shapur I, who would utterly defeat the Romans. Speaking of which, Shapur lived around then, so perhaps it isn't so implausible...

Perhaps with the Eastern Roman Empire collapsed and a large Persian army in Thrace, the Romans would be forced to maintain a field army in Greece for a time. The Persians pay the Huns to attack the Romans, and Attila needs no more encouragement. With large parts of the army far away, Aetius is defeated and Orleans is taken. Then he turns his eyes on Italia. That's what I'm working from right now...

thats a self defeating idea; to have a better general, you need an emperor different then shapur- its better to make far mor eminor, and thierfore more possibel results in history then change the major players as one wishes.

that said, what makes you think the persians woudl have the funds to to bribe the huns, or that the huns woudl take a bribe- they were drawn into central europe by expanding upon conflicts- conflicts that would not necissarilly happen becaus epof the laps of Roman rule in the east (which, it shoudl eb remined, wouldnt mean an army in greece fromt he west, it means all the amries alreayd in greece goign to the west, because the east -greec eincluded- no longer exists as part of the empire)

 

[North King]

thats a self defeating idea; to have a better general, you need an emperor different then shapur- its better to make far mor eminor, and thierfore more possibel results in history then change the major players as one wishes.

No, you could have Shapur be a better general. Or better, pursue the Byzantines with more vigor. They were ripe for downfall at this point, or, actually Rome was, but Byzantium by extension.

that said, what makes you think the persians woudl have the funds to to bribe the huns, or that the huns woudl take a bribe- they were drawn into central europe by expanding upon conflicts- conflicts that would not necissarilly happen becaus epof the laps of Roman rule in the east

Avars worked together with the Sassinids, which nearly toppled the Byzantines at their height. Huns are much the same, they could work together, and will for the purpose of this scenario.

(which, it shoudl eb remined, wouldnt mean an army in greece fromt he west, it means all the amries alreayd in greece goign to the west, because the east -greec eincluded- no longer exists as part of the empire)

The Western Romans realized things were going crazy, so they snatched up Greece before the over extended Sassinids could. Which will lead to an interesting thing in just a moment...

 

[Xen]

No, you could have Shapur be a better general. Or better, pursue the Byzantines with more vigor. They were ripe for downfall at this point, or, actually Rome was, but Byzantium by extension.

rome as an empire the zize that it was at was heading for a downfall- a reduced sized rome, as Byzantium durelly shows, coudl indeed, successfulyl defend itself

Avars worked together with the Sassinids, which nearly toppled the Byzantines at their height. Huns are much the same, they could work together, and will for the purpose of this scenario.

a scenario which i hope you dont make into an NES thiers no precedent- the Sassanids only knew of ahinnic divergence group, the ephiplates, and were blood enimies of them- and whiel th epersian wer ebig on the "the enemy of my emeny is my friend" bit- the huns, and nomads in general were the enemy of persia at this tiem as well- thiers also that little fact that th eopersians had no way of communicateing with them, but I suppose time and space barriers dont work with history

The Western Romans realized things were going crazy, so they snatched up Greece before the over extended Sassinids could. Which will lead to an interesting thing in just a moment...

yeah, assumign that the western romans completelly ignored thier own lands, which, rather obviouslly,they wouldnt have.

 

[North King]

rome as an empire the zize that it was at was heading for a downfall- a reduced sized rome, as Byzantium durelly shows, coudl indeed, successfulyl defend itself

Yah. That's why the Romans survive until medieval times in this one...

a scenario which i hope you dont make into an NES thiers no precedent- the Sassanids only knew of ahinnic divergence group, the ephiplates, and were blood enimies of them- and whiel th epersian wer ebig on the "the enemy of my emeny is my friend" bit- the huns, and nomads in general were the enemy of persia at this tiem as well- thiers also that little fact that th eopersians had no way of communicateing with them, but I suppose time and space barriers dont work with history

So sad... You haven't even seen the timeline and you are denouncing it... Tsk tsk. Besides which, the Huns could easily be paid to go elsewhere, the Romans paid them to take out groups, the Persians could be no different. And they can easily communicate, the Huns empire is at the Danube, and a large Persian army in Thracia means that they could reach the Danube in a few days march.

Besides which, wouldn't you like to join as Rome and try to restore the empire?

yeah, assumign that the western romans completelly ignored thier own lands, which, rather obviouslly,they wouldnt have.

They had the extra troops from fleeing Byzantines. They didn't want it to fall into Sassinid hands. They would be able to sieze it, and had motivation.

 

[Xen]

Yah. That's why the Romans survive until medieval times in this one...

I'id say at least until medieval times; a strong western roem is in the position to deny bot the germans, and the French getting too strong (cant do much abour britian though, but shoudl be able to hold its own from the northmen)

on the flip side the arabs may never becoem a problem with a strogn persia, and potentially an indipendent egypt and elvant blocking thier way- the Byzantien empiure was strecthed to thin to defend, and had too little support to defend fromt he arabs- but two hoemgrown states shoudl provide a nice buffer, and thats still ingnoring a strogn persia

So sad... You haven't even seen the timeline and you are denouncing it... Tsk tsk. Besides which, the Huns could easily be paid to go elsewhere, the Romans paid them to take out groups, the Persians could be no different. And they can easily communicate, the Huns empire is at the Danube, and a large Persian army in Thracia means that they could reach the Danube in a few days march.

self interest- I woudl join such an NES immediatelly- it is in my own best interest to preserve the territorial integrity of the western empire danube border by giving logical and sound arguments as such- besides, I'd find a gothic nation more itnerestign the boring old huns as my neighbors- same sort of arguments go for th ehuns as the great chinese war between me and das in your NES; boring as hell, retrofit it,and give them a completelly new twist, or replace it by dumping them- both are possible in such a timeline, and even happend as the huns ceased biong a nomadic army be the time they hit the ukrain, at least, and just became the master sof pent up germanic fury, with a fiarlyl nice cavalry wing,t hat still couldnt save them from the pitiful western army

Besides which, wouldn't you like to join as Rome and try to restore the empire?

*ahem* thier is no trying involved in the matter

 

[North King]

Huns completely collapsed, after they sacked Rome or thereabouts. It still survived, but only has ITalia, a strip of Illyria, and Hellenia. Wait for the timeline.

It would be set in the 750s or slightly ahead of there.

 

[jalapeno_dude]

What if the Persians won the battle of Salamis?

That would affect Greek culture, which would affect Rome, which would affect...

 

[Xen]

Huns completely collapsed, after they sacked Rome or thereabouts. It still survived, but only has ITalia, a strip of Illyria, and Hellenia. Wait for the timeline.

It would be set in the 750s or slightly ahead of there.

by "itallia" what do you mean- "Itallia" stretches well beyond th eborders of modern day Italy- anmd I sti; think givng them anythign in greece, as opposed to a big river right next door in unearth dumb, illogical, and the complet eoipposite of what anyone in the west woudl actually try to do.

 

[Xen]

What if the Persians won the battle of Salamis?

That would affect Greek culture, which would affect Rome, which would affect...

no it wouldnt- Rome was already a republic by then, and its culture firm and finalize dinto a fashion that hated almost anythign and everything Greek that wouldnt end until after the third punic war.

 

[North King]

by "itallia" what do you mean- "Itallia" stretches well beyond th eborders of modern day Italy- anmd I sti; think givng them anythign in greece, as opposed to a big river right next door in unearth dumb, illogical, and the complet eoipposite of what anyone in the west woudl actually try to do.

So you think... What's wrong with Greece? IT provides an excellent buffer area.

 

[Xen]

So you think... What's wrong with Greece? IT provides an excellent buffer area.

against who?- any indipendent states in the eastern med ar emor elikelly to be christian, and thus Roman allies agiast the heathen persians, who wouldnt have been abkle to hold anythign past the historical Byzantine-Persian boarder lands, because of simple cultural reisitence.

by comparison, the danube area is where barbarian were- and still were activlly cxomign from, and it makes allt he more sense to have a stron gmilitary presence the area- namelly, by controliign directlly, and maintianing good defences in the area.

their no argument for greece- it fell under neither the want fo the western empire, nor under its strategic necceisties to hold to protect the homlands.

 

[North King]

A large Sassinid army there isn't a security threat? It is temperary, yes, but there is the problem, and the romans wouldn't just let it go after then.

 

[Xen]

A large Sassinid army there isn't a security threat? It is temperary, yes, but there is the problem, and the romans wouldn't just let it go after then.

not really- a large army from an orginzed state, in strange, and completelly hostile territory, subject to not only native partisans, local militias and military reminats, but also barbarian raiders who dont care who they are fighting, is actually goign to be a threat? Tha Sassanians were never good at extended campaigns- they couldnt even hold on to Antioch when the captured it, what makes you think that they, not under ones man jurisditicion ming you, but as an entire nation, coudl actually supplu what was needed to position an army, and keep it thier, when they dotn even have a navy to begin sending supplies, and even fi they did, woudl have no trianed sailors, or good warships- even the mighty Persian empire of the classical era couldnt manage such a feat- and the sassanids were mostlly a pale reflection of the classical empire, except in the quality of thier troops.

add ot the fact that Greece didnt fall under western Romes jurisdiction, the fact thats its painfull obvious thge the persians couldnt keep any sort of major force itn eh area for real legnth of time, and the fact that, and you said it yourself, that the persian were funding barbaian tribes to march agiast rome, tribes where directlyl connected to rome by land boundaries, and thier is no argument for greece, but rather a firm presence in dalmatia, and Illyria, and the other danube bordering territoies.

 

[das]

I sincerely doubt the Ottomans would be crushed, and that if they had somehow been crushed that a massive rebellion would not come. The rebellion drawing recruits from all over Sunni Islam would not exactly lack in numbers, and with a good general, they would probably topple the Byzantines. One wonders wether the state that would result would be a new, Nationalist, secular Turkey or a fundimentalist Turkey...

The Ottomans came as close to collapse back then as they never did until Russo-Turkish war (1877 one) back then. The Egyptians overran Syria, Iraq was quite capable of rebelling... Untie Russo-Austrian hands, and you've got one crumbling empire.

And where will they get a good general? And besides, the rebellion will still suffer in organization and technology when compared to the Russo-Austrian army guarding the Byzantine territory. Greece, meanwhile, had a pretty strong Orthodox majority. Constantinople was rather mixed, but the Armenians will probably not care or be pro-Byzantine. Western Anatolia had a sizeable Orthodox community as well. In the east, we have Armenians again. So that leaves just central and southern Anatolia.

 

[North King]

The Ottomans came as close to collapse back then as they never did until Russo-Turkish war (1877 one) back then. The Egyptians overran Syria, Iraq was quite capable of rebelling... Untie Russo-Austrian hands, and you've got one crumbling empire.

Not really, the russians and austrians had a long history of messing up their alliances, and Turkey never lost turkey proper.

And where will they get a good general?

Anywhere. Who would have predicted the rise of a general like Jan Hus? Desperate times weed out bad generals.

And besides, the rebellion will still suffer in organization and technology when compared to the Russo-Austrian army guarding the Byzantine territory.

Oh yeah, and those armies were the pinnacle of organization at that time?

Greece, meanwhile, had a pretty strong Orthodox majority.

Greece, and no where else.

Constantinople was rather mixed, but the Armenians will probably not care or be pro-Byzantine.

Constantinople was Muslim. Period.

Western Anatolia had a sizeable Orthodox community as well.

Ever so sizable, yes. If you mean less than even a significant minority as sizable.

In the east, we have Armenians again. So that leaves just central and southern Anatolia.

Armenians couldn't do much, and the Russians would seriously suffer on the Caucasus front. Brits would support Ottomans most likely, and we have a slightly different remake of the Crimean War. French probably go against the Aust4rians while their occupied.