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
OOC: GOOD?! I'm EVIL, thank you. ;)

In the previous section, I forgot to mention that Spain gets Gibraltar and Minorca back.

IC:

Period of (roughly) 1760-1780. This was a time of great changes in some places, and the quiet before the storm in others. Now, major changes were actually yet to occur in numerous places - these I will not mention now. Those I will mention are:

North America:

The expulsion of the British from the colonial game in North America was celebrated greatly by the French colonists. Indeed, the victory over Britain convinced more and more Frenchmen to join the colonies of New France, Virginia and Louisiana. Albeit it wasn't an official decision, the English settlers from the former New England were... "encouraged" to move to Virginia and back home. Naturally, this soon spilled into the Rebellion in 1766, when Timothy Washington and his "free English army" were chased around in the area between Richmond and Nouvelle Jaursee (former New Jersey, often called simply Jaursee) until finally being defeated at Burg la Charle (OTL Gettysburg). All-in-all, French colonies were expanding territory-wise and population-wise, with the amerinds the only "serious" threat present. Raids here and there took place against New France, causing numerous forts to be erected in the Great Lakes region. The amerinds were doomed there by the lack of a strong leader.

The stop of the British war reparations payment in 1767 caused quite a shake-up in the colonies, as this meant higher taxes. But FOR THE MOMENT, it too had no leader and AT MOST spilled out into minor risings. But the situation was detiriorating beyond repair...

The Dutch policies in Jamaika and Nieuw Amsterdam were quite similar to French ones actually - the British were encouraged - though this time actually encouraged and not openly forced - to go someplace else. The Dutch population base in both areas remained rather minor during this period.

For the moment, Spanish colonization of California went on as in OTL...

Europe:

One can always expect a lot to happen here...

Firstly, we have Britain. Embittered by defeat, ruled by an increasingly insane king, forced to pay huge reparations (and thus to tax its population heavily), Britain was in a very bad state of affairs. By 1767, this got way too bad to be tolerated. A republican movement arose; it soon found a great leader in William Beckford and a charismatic "voice" in John Wilkes (another enthusiastic young supporter was Charles James Fox...). Rebellions filled England, a good contingent of followers was found amongst the former colonists who decided to return to Britain. Soon enough, another Civil War begun. The Royalists were routed at Thames, Dover was besieged and captured, reparations were stopped (as French economy was actually in a pretty bad state and was only able to somehow function thanks to these reparations, yes, that wasn't very pleasant). The king and the royal family fled to Hannover, but were soon given a rude surprise there... as in Denmark-Norway, encouraged by the British example, court physician and de facto ruler of Denmark-Norway Johann Friedrich von Struensee, following a failed coup attempt against him, declared the Republic of Denmark-Norway. Initially large parts of the population were opposed to it here and there, but at that point the British fleet won the crucial battle at Norman Islands against France and thus became capable of assisting Struensee with troops and funds (they also became capable of assuming control over the autonomous republic of Ireland within Britain).

The Danish forces ofcourse failed to conquer Hannover. But the presence of "rebel scum" to his north made George III even madder. Back in Britain, a Republic was declared, the British Republican Council (BRC) replaced the Parliament, and the positions of Lord-Protector (elected for life, largely ceremonial/organizational) and Head Councilman (HM) (essentially a Prime Minister in modern British terms) were created.

But the revolution did not spread outside of those two peculiar countries. Britain was never associated with closely by your average European, and neither was Denmark-Norway. In the rest of Europe, life went on.

The poor and insignificant island of Corsica was sold to Austria in 1768 by Genoa (not that it matters...). Austrians also in 1778 made a jolly good deal with Charles Theodore Wittelsbach of the Rhenish line. Theodore, you see, inherited Bavaria. He didn't want Bavaria. So he and the Austrians made a deal - Austrians get Bavaria, he gets Austrian Netherlands and Kingdom status, proclaiming the Kingdom of Burgundy in his lands both old and new. That unnerved the French a great deal, especially after the "Burgundians" used a lot of diplomacy, funds and intrigue to eventually (by 1780) gain control on territory from East Frieseland (incidentally a coastal territory) to the French-held easternmost tip of Lorraine-Alsace (OOC: most territories he gained often switched hands in just such moves. Often done, indeed, by the Wittelsbachs. Here he also has a very good motivation). Also dangerous was his control of Trier, as it linked his lands with his Belgian holdings. A new player rose in Germany, as if to replace the unfulfilled potential of Prussia-Brandenburg.

And speaking of Brandenburg, after a mini-civil war between two Hohenzollern branches in 1777, Austria gained de facto control over that as well. The Austrian expansionism was noted by many...

Peter III ruled for three (!!!) years in Russia, during which he antagonized the landholders and the clergy, but on the other hand went down, before that whole hunting accident, in Russian history as the Liberator Emperor for abolishing serfdom. That abolition, too, left the country in quite a mess as it was conducted skill-lessly. It was up to Catherine the Great to make anything good of that. Also about Russia, Poland was by then long a Russian satellite. During the 1764 Polish royal election, the presence of the Russian troops unnerved many, and caused a major rising. The pro-Russian candidate, Stanislaw Poniatowski, was wounded but not killed. Blaming the heretofore ruling Saxon dynasty for that, the Russians remained in Poland for far longer then expected. Austria enthusiastically backed Russia after being informed that in exchange for turning a blind eye on formalization of Russian control of Poland it will get to annex Saxony (and recognized in other territorial acquisations in Germany) if the Saxons do something. Saxons did something. Got annexed by Austrians. All this concerned the Ottomans greatly, they declared war on Russia but were quickly routed by Austro-Russian forces in 1765-1767 Russo-Turkish war. Russia had some of its troops tied down in Poland, and so it was decided to press for just some territorial gains. Some they got - Russia got Crimea, Moldavia and Wallachia, Austria got Serbia, Bosnia and Montenegro. That (along with previous Austrian gains), in turn, concerned the minor German and Italian states and the Bourbon Family Compact (France, Spain, Naples) greatly, causing them all to sign a secret Treaty of Brussels, in which they agreed to move against all and any further Russo-Austrian agression.

A funny note about Russia is that though Denmark-Norway is a republic, Russia still did annex Oldenburg. Unlike in OTL, it chose to hold on to it if only as a good port and naval base in the North Sea.

Middle East:

The Ottoman Empire was, as is probably remembered, rather busy in the north - even in late 1760s and early 1770s, when they needed to garrison their new borders. Thus, 'Ali Bey and his Egyptians had very little trouble in not only getting independance but also in horribly shaking up the Ottoman system by taking Damascus and Mecca. ITTL, the Egyptians also had enough time to consolidate their gains. Poor Ottomans...

India:

The first Franco-Marathan War took place in 1771-1779. It was a long and unexpectedly bloody war, some say due to British support to the Marathans, and it also ended in a draw.

Ofcourse, how did the British manage to help the Marathans is unknown as after 1767, when Robert Clive became a de facto independant ruler of Bengal, often called the "White Raj". With his death in 1775, Bengal fell into the hands of French allies...
 
das said:
OOC: GOOD?! I'm EVIL, thank you. ;)

No disagreement with that on this end. Nice, but isn't this developing into less of an idea than just a huge althist?
 
and the chant for a prettiful map grows ever larger....
 
The idea here is to make it a big althist. Like some of my previous ones.
 
It's more of an althist, because a story would have more character interaction.
 
Doesn't strike me as very story-esque...
 
I'm making an alt his scenario, and am currentlly fleshing out a map; however, I need a few things;

A)a map of french, and German feudal fiefs

B)a good reason why China would be split up into at least two, if not more factions in and around the years between 1350-1360 AD

C)maps of the arab nations, particuraley the Egyptian Mameluke Sultanate, and how far it extended into africa

D)maps fromt he specified timer period (12th century) of various Afrcian nations, as well as India, and other areas of the world
 
Xen said:
I'm making an alt his scenario, and am currentlly fleshing out a map; however, I need a few things;

B)a good reason why China would be split up into at least two, if not more factions in and around the years between 1350-1360 AD

It wouldn't. Quite simply put, ever since the Qin united China, no one else would let it stay disunified for long as long as they knew it could, eventually, become unified.
 
For the china question, that's the period of Yuan Dynasty... maybe have the rebels/Ming ppl rebel earlier than usual and in the end only recover half the kingdom? just a suggestion. You can also have different princes of the yuan court being in charge of a part of the country, and when the emperor died, they broke off and fought each other for the right to be the next emperor
 
North King said:
It wouldn't. Quite simply put, ever since the Qin united China, no one else would let it stay disunified for long as long as they knew it could, eventually, become unified.

pish. the mongols were about in this era, and I know the Golden Khnate existet in europe, but I dont know what the post-great mongol conquest situation in China was like. You know, the likelyl hood for rebellions and what not- but dont give me crap about it not beign able to be disunified; the three kingdosm era showed very well not that not coudl china be disunfied,. it coudl stay that way; at least until th emongol interevenied, and served a unifyer for china for when they were eventually overthrown.
 
ThomAnder said:
For the china question, that's the period of Yuan Dynasty... maybe have the rebels/Ming ppl rebel earlier than usual and in the end only recover half the kingdom? just a suggestion. You can also have different princes of the yuan court being in charge of a part of the country, and when the emperor died, they broke off and fought each other for the right to be the next emperor

the second part isnt a bad idea; its dissapointing with me havign to leave off a recent NES before ti was born that had a similer situation, and I have been thinking about incorperating it on a different scale in this next idea...
 
Xen said:
but dont give me crap about it not beign able to be disunified; the three kingdosm era showed very well not that not coudl china be disunfied,. it coudl stay that way; at least until th emongol interevenied, and served a unifyer for china for when they were eventually overthrown.

It wouldn't have stayed that way. The Three Kingdoms, might I remind you, ended with another union, and it wasn't from an outside source. The only reason they were disunited when the Mongols came was that the Jin had invaded and weren't able to secure the south. But they would have been united, either by another invader, or internally, because no man who was ambitious enough to rule a nation would settle for a small kingdom when he knew that the prize of all China might be in his grasp.
 
North King said:
It wouldn't have stayed that way. The Three Kingdoms, might I remind you, ended with another union, and it wasn't from an outside source. The only reason they were disunited when the Mongols came was that the Jin had invaded and weren't able to secure the south. But they would have been united, either by another invader, or internally, because no man who was ambitious enough to rule a nation would settle for a small kingdom when he knew that the prize of all China might be in his grasp.

dandy, but I dont care; for the purpoise of my NES, it will be outside everyones grasp, at least until the time the NES has started, an player coudl try his hand at unifacation; you can either help me find a historical reason for a seperation, or leave to my own devices, and perhaps end up putting any sort of pervese disaster upon the country; I woudl prefer followifn through on the former, but have litter problem applying the latter to the situation as well.
 
B)a good reason why China would be split up into at least two, if not more factions in and around the years between 1350-1360 AD

A TEMPORARY division IS possible. You can start another round of peasant risings in that period, and PERHAPS if the Mongols get lucky they MIGHT set up a border along the Yangtze river. But in that period especially it would maximum last fifty years, and that's stretching plausibility as well.

You are quite childish in your sinophobia. Anyone ever told you that before? ;)
 
das said:
A TEMPORARY division IS possible. You can start another round of peasant risings in that period, and PERHAPS if the Mongols get lucky they MIGHT set up a border along the Yangtze river. But in that period especially it would maximum last fifty years, and that's stretching plausibility as well.

You are quite childish in your sinophobia. Anyone ever told you that before? ;)

sinophobia? what are you talking about; it may seem that way because I spend most of my argumentitive time arguing in favor of Rome, and the west, but thats because I'm needed in that regard, or else you, alogn with ahorde of others, would dissect and take away every honour the west has had; give me an example of when i have slandered China; I do not belive I have, or at least cannot recall it, and if you knew me (which admitentlly, you dont) You'd know that I coem from a familly that actually has quite a few chinese practices (such as Feng Shui) adopted about its house.

no, you think that I;m a sinophobe only because I defend the west- and am particueraley proud of my heritage, but you dont know **** about what i value.

I look to seperate china because it woudl lead to mor einteresting NES, NOT because i have anythign agianst it.
 
Stop arguing, please! Just post!

How about the Mongols fall victim to some disease, and suddenly the whole country goes into chaos with no northern overlord. Every warlord grabs a chunk of the old empire with the old governors staying on with all of their experience, and China gets split into a lot of different little states, not just two or three. With diseases, you can make your targets selective, too, because of the randomness of a virulent agent.
 
possibly, though a bit sloppy for my likeing; if forced to do my own history in china (which, admittantlly, wont be much of a stretch, as significant alterations in western europe have already ensued) I think I would veto the entire mongol conquest, and just instil soem sort of a massive stalemate amoungst the remainder chinese kingdoms durign the 5 dynasties period- coupled with a different dynasty comign forward when the Tang historically did (or just never lettign the concept of a unfied china that only developed durign the tang dynsty come about in the first place); perhaps the mongol and other border nomads, and the Veits, Tibetians, and Nan Choa all offered enough influx, and threats to keep the kingdoms seperated
 
OOC: It just seemed that you really do get very excited whenever something bad happens to China. I could bring up examples, but I won't.

IC:

I think a special section should be dedicated to the grandiose, history-changing events of 1782-1789 in North America.

By the year of 1782, the amerinds and the angloamericans were no longer the largest threat to French colonies. It was rather the colonies themselves - due to the declining French economy, the taxes in the colonies increased. Indeed, by 1782, all that was needed was a push, which came in the form of high-handed behavior of French garrisons in Montreal, and a leader, who came in the form of Arman Challom (think a combination of Napoleon Bonaparte and Emilian Pugachev here...).

And so, in 1782 first rebellions broke out. A "Parlement" was assembled in Quebec by New French republicans; citizens of Montreal were raised to arms by the charismatic and popular Arman, as did many of those in the countryside. Virginia was aflame. The colonial militia rebelled at Duquesne, Quebec and Montreal. After pitched battles, these three cities along with Richmont were captured by rebels who at the moment were quite disorganized (coordination was largely weak as well). French forces were sent to reinforce the loyal garrisons. The republican general Joseph Altaire was defeated in Acadia at Beasejour, but performed a skilled retreat. Further west, Arman "cleaned up" the St. Lawrence River area. Virginia became a real hell for loyal French troops, due to the guerrila campaign executed by Edward Ornsby and his "freemen".

Virginia and St. Lawrence aside, French loyal forces led by Charles de Rupen reached out to and besieged the coastal city of Quebec. The "Liberte" army was routed at Trois-Rivieres in early 1784. This brought about the first of the two changes that turned the tide of the war around - Arman Challom became, after some negotiations with Ornsby (limited autonomy promised to Virginia, with bi-linguicity) and the desparate Altaire, the "dictator of the revolution", which made him de jure and de facto leader of the rebellion, giving it the much-needed central command.

The second one was that, after Arman won in July 1784 at Massena, the British Republic, despite its dislike of the clearly-dictatorial nature of the "American Republic", decided, if only to make the French king mad (which it literally did...), to lend support to Arman. The British land force was not at all formidable. But the navy was a different story. The French fleet was defeated at Biscay; British fleet cut off the French army in America from supplies and reinforcements.

That allowed the American victories of 1785 at Montpelier and at Androscoggin. The latter was a decisive victory, and Charles de Rupen and his army surrendered there. After that, all went downhill for the French. The British seized New Orleans in 1786, and when Spain tried to support France the British also conquered Florida and Cuba. In the light of recent victories, Charles de Rupen was crowned Emperor of America in the new capital of Montreal. By 1788, the French were expelled out New France and Virginia altogether, with only a small force fighting on from Louisiana. The coup de grace to French attempts at reconquest of America was landed by Empress Catherine of Russia acknowledging, in early 1789, Arman I as the Emperor of America. Soon after, peace negotiations in St. Petersburg reversed the situation that appeared after the Seven Years War. France sold Louisiana to Britain (there was not much regret here - "let the British and the Americans kill each other"), and acknowledged America's independance in most of New France and all of Virginia. France only kept Newfoundland and Rupert's Land in (mainland) North America. Spain soon after confirmed the British gains of Cuba and Florida.
 
das said:
OOC: It just seemed that you really do get very excited whenever something bad happens to China. I could bring up examples, but I won't.

because when ever somthign bad happens to china in an NES, its either ; A)interesting, B)large scale, C)favorable to me, or D)all of the above, and a good show to boot

its also because until recentlly, i didnt liek alex all that much, and since he was sually the master of china, I had reason to cheer its downfall; but thats stupid, and Alex is no longer annoying to me, in no small part, due to me gettign to know him a littl ebetter from our alliance in the current Jason NES; as well as clearing up between us that I dont hate china, and he dosent hate the west, I;m more free to express my knowledge of china, and my respect for it; i dont agree with soem fo the cultural practice smind you; I'm very hard set in classical humanitarian, values of the west; but that dosetn mean I dont respect what comes from, or refuse to look,. and understand what comes from it either.
 
Back
Top Bottom