Alternate History NESes; Spout some ideas!

[Xen]

the greeks fleeing to Ital in cas eof invasion is nonsense; the greeks resisting persian ruler were in the MINORITY, mind you, and I doubt what was left woudl have enough left over to go to italy (this obviouslly assumes the Greeks have anything resembeling a navy still in place,to get thier troopers over, not at all damn likelly) and moreover, Italy was even more[/i[ fraqgmented with Greek states then the greek mainland was! Sicilly alone had around 8 competeign greek states until they were slowlly ahnilaited over two centuries by Carthaginans and Syracusians.

 

[North King]

What if Germany had won WWI? (I seriously want to explore this one. With a victorious, prosperous Germany, Hitler couldn't have risen. How would the geopolitical climate change in Europe and, conversely, the world?)

Pfft... Boring enough. The depression would still start and we'd have mass communist revolutions is my guess.

What if the Allies had still won WWI, but Italy had stayed with the Central Powers? (Would the Allies have divided Italy once more into a collection of small republics?)

Prolly not.

What if the Spanish Armada had succeeded in invading England? (There was a plot I think around 1500s. I'll have to check, but the Spanish Armada was ready OTL to sail up the Thames.)

Then the English Catholics would have survived longer but the Protestants would be even stronger when they reemerged, and the religious wars would be even more brutal. More excitement...

What if the Mongols had overrun many parts of France, and many French nobles (and lotsa refugees) fled to the Levant? (Signifigantly stronger Crusader states...)

That's just silly. Well then Europe would have been decimated, and when the Arabs finally crushed the Crusader States (I think there's no question), they would have been the top of the world and Europe would be Muslim again.

We mentioned numerous times in this thread the idea of if Greece was conquered by Persia, the Allied Greeks would flee to Syracuse and expand from there. I want to elaborate on this. A united Greek empire in Sicily, later retaking Greece? How would this affect the Rise of Rome?

Why would they manage to retake Greece? Who says Persia could not undergo a revival?

 

[Xen]

Why would they manage to retake Greece? Who says Persia could not undergo a revival?

because Persia was bloated, ineffectual, and corrupt, and its well known that they ruled inname only for most of anatolia, unless a full Persian army happend to be int he area, and even that didnt prevent rebellion- the greeks considered a great deal of persian "territory" well before, and well after persian expansion to the area, anf the persian wars as indipendent kingdoms, and not true representitives of Persia at all.

considering this was the stae of affiars over most of the Persian empire, and you dont have any sort of basis for a revival- just the same as no such revival took place in real life, even when under the command of two super-star leader slike Darius, and Xerxes, who were the two best persian emperor outside of CYrus himself, and yet the entire situation continued to deteriorate, bnecause of the inherent set up of th epersian empires satrapies- a set up, that when adopted by Alexander, served his empire no better, and led, perhaps, to an even fast dissolution of the empire, and an even faster weakening of the states the formerlly comprised it.

 

[North King]

Psh. We have a thousand Roman Empire reforms things, why not a Persian? They're just as plausible.

 

[Xen]

not really; the persian empire was a relitivlyl short lived beast- mighty and proud when it reached its apex, but it achieved that apex under its firt ruler, Cyrus, and no other ruler proved capable of followign in his footsteps, and estbalishing an empire that wasin anyway unfieid, outside of Medea, and Persia proper, whom, as we all know, are still bound to this day. a comparison to a Roman reform dosent match up; by the secodn century, a strong national identity had already been cultivated amoung the provincials of beign granted that most honourd of privledges, Roman citizenship, and being Roman became the fashion, and those whom were Romans were quite proud of the fact, as can be attested by innumerable Auxilliaries of the centuries who regarded the bronze tablets givign them thier citizenship as thier most prized of Possesion, and the the Byzantien self hailign of themselves as Romans throught thier own thousand year history. Adverslly, we dont see Egyptians calling themselves Persians, do we?

 

[WarlordMatt]

I just had another idea. What if the Black Sea was never created by the flood 7,500 years ago?

 

[Cuivienen]

IIRC it existed before the flood. However, it was a freshwater sea until something broke the "dam" of the Bosporus and the ocean flooded in.

 

[WarlordMatt]

Yeah, that's what I meant, the Black Sea deluge theory. There would be a land bridge where those straits were supposed to be. It'd give Alexander a better avenue of invasion, considering he rises to power in such an althist.

 

[das]

Btw, my PoD was with Kornilov's coup starting earlier, before it was too late for it to work.

What if Germany had won WWI?

Why do you think Hitler couldn't have risen? And besides, I suspect something worse will come. Ofcourse, it depends on WHEN the war is over. IMHO, Germany's best (and nearly the only) chance for victory was in 1918. In 1918, they were also however quite greedy, wanting to take a real bloody lot of land. Much more then they could hold. Macro-Yugoslavia soon after the victory. Possibility of Karl Liebknecht creating the EU, for better or worse...

What if the Allies had still won WWI, but Italy had stayed with the Central Powers?

Nah, why bother. More like colonies being taken away and reparations and stuff. Possibly an Entante Abyssinia.

What if the Spanish Armada had succeeded in invading England?

So? Suppose they land. Naval harassment of supplies by Dutch and English ships, determined (if outnumbered, though I am not even sure about that) resistance by English troops, and even if they somehow succeed in seizing and holding large parts of England it will be another Netherlands for them, only bigger and with worse supply situation.

What if the Mongols had overrun many parts of France, and many French nobles (and lotsa refugees) fled to the Levant?

I doubt the Mongol capability of doing that, and that French nobles/refugees would really want (or be able) to flee to some god-forsaken holy land... Some will live with the Mongols, other will go to Italy and France. Also, Crusader states are really not viable. I don't think any more idiots joining in will allow them to hold back the Muslims - rather, it will only make the economy worse off, and the Muslims will finish them off earlier.

We mentioned numerous times in this thread the idea of if Greece was conquered by Persia, the Allied Greeks would flee to Syracuse and expand from there. I want to elaborate on this. A united Greek empire in Sicily, later retaking Greece? How would this affect the Rise of Rome?

Retake Greece? Why? I think Syracusean Empire will be too busy fighting with Carthage. It DOES get interesting when it comes to Rome, as Sicily COULD be a great naval power. On the other hand, Carthage and Rome might ally against them and crush them.

 

[Xen]

heres an idea; what if england never turned protestant; Henry VIII's divorces were all granted, and he never felt the need to go reform?

 

[das]

Can anybody, btw, give me a good list of differences between Anglican and Catholic churches? I seem to recall there not being as much.

Well, Henry, when not mad at the Pope, was quite a Counter-Reformationist Catholic it would seem (Fidei Defensor, to boot!). I think England is likely to get a minor-scale Religious War between Catholics and Protestants, though Protestants won't stand a chance. Perhaps Anglo-Spanish intervention in France (what's with the English historic claim and all...)? Also, Netherlands, though not neccessarily doomed, will be much more hardpressed. The colonial scene is likely to be dominated, if Netherlands are crushed, by... dun dun dun... Sweden. Or Scotland.

 

[Xen]

@Das- wasnt scotland under the English thumb by then? (meaning that the colonal scene woudl be dpminated, aside formt he standar dpeoples, the Spanish, Portugese,French and English, by a sweedish presence)

also , coudl it result in a more vibrent spanish empire; without English Piracy, Spain is assured to bring in significantlly larger amounts of gold from the new world

 

[das]

wasnt scotland under the English thumb by then?

Nope, no it wasn't. Also, England and France will be considerable set back in their colonization.

Gold was Spain's doom. It brought inflation and corruption, and economic stagnation, so Cortez's success was one of the worst possible long-term economic catastrophes for Spain at the time.

 

[Xen]

Nope, no it wasn't. Also, England and France will be considerable set back in their colonization.

then why was mary queen of scots so able to be imprisioned?

 

[das]

She came much later then that, and just because she happened to be in London doesn't mean Scotland was in England.

 

[North King]

What if France went Protestant?

 

[Dachs]

And didn't crush the Huguenots? Cool...

Going back to Syracuse, what if the Athenian Empire captured it in the Expedition of 415-3 BC (Peloponnesian War, sorry Amenhotep) and won the war? Or perhaps Archimedes isn't killed by the Romans in the sacking of the city in the Second Punic War? Alexander is killed at Chaeronaea before he becomes king, Sparta beats Epaminondas at Leuctra, Germany keeps Lenin's train from reaching Russia in 1917, therefore making the communists lose a lot of their steam...

 

[das]

What if France went Protestant?

It nearly did. Btw, that was a part of my Communeros timeline.

Alexander is killed at Chaeronaea before he becomes king, Sparta beats Epaminondas at Leuctra, Germany keeps Lenin's train from reaching Russia in 1917, therefore making the communists lose a lot of their steam...

What does the last one has to do with the generally-Greek theme here?

And how will they lose a lot of their steam? More likely is that there is no Russian Civil War but rather a simple coup (well, and a few minor uprisings) - a communist party led by Trotsky would not have polarized the socialist movement as much, and the other "Whites" and "Greens" (if Greens do, indeed, still appear) will pretty much be done for it.

 

[Dachs]

I needed some more ideas to make the post look bigger.

Trotsky and Stalin would'nt have had their later fight over leadership after Lenin's death in 1922. The loss of Lenin might (although that's a big might) have delayed any communists seizing power until after Kerensky's replacement with a suitably stronger leader. It was a dumb idea, I know, but what if Stalin never heard about communism and continued training to be a priest?

 

[das]

Kerensky would never have lasted THAT long. The communist party was quite strong without Lenin - there were many other leaders. And also, I think Kerensky's most likely non-communist replacement is Kornilov. See a page or two ago, with a series of world maps in 20th century, for that one.

Nah, he wouldn't be a priest. Much more likely non-communist Stalin is a nationalist/fascist/national-socialist dictator/leader.