Alternate History NESes; Spout some ideas!

[das]

Goddamnit, get Panda to do it, he doesn't seem to be doing anything useful save for the 1919 map.

 

[von_Seydlitz]

Gaius Julius Caesar suffers a fatal defeat at Alesia...

 

[Reno]

Goddamnit, get Panda to do it, he doesn't seem to be doing anything useful save for the 1919 map.

I was hoping that you could have done it, but anyone else can really do a lot better job at it then me. I'll ask Panda then.

 

[das]

I could TRY if I find the time... What is the final version of the rules?

Gaius Julius Caesar suffers a fatal defeat at Alesia...

"We've done that before!" I think it was NK, no? Anyhow, I suspect the Romans would still try to conquer Gaul - it was too natural a target. Probably no Caeser, but remember - there were many reasons some obscure general could rise to absolute power, and I don't see why the Republic can't be overthrown later. An interesting consequence is that Britannia will probably never be conquered, and the later conquest of Gaul would distract resources from expansion in the Middle East.

 

[von_Seydlitz]

I could TRY if I find the time... What is the final version of the rules?


"We've done that before!" I think it was NK, no? Anyhow, I suspect the Romans would still try to conquer Gaul - it was too natural a target. Probably no Caeser, but remember - there were many reasons some obscure general could rise to absolute power, and I don't see why the Republic can't be overthrown later. An interesting consequence is that Britannia will probably never be conquered, and the later conquest of Gaul would distract resources from expansion in the Middle East.

Damnit, I felt so f****** innovative.

 

[das]

It happens. Actually, now that I thought of it NK wasn't the first one to bring it up...

Besides, when compared to the never-ending flood of Rome not falling, Mongols conquering Europe and Germans winning WWI or WWII, Alesia still is innovative.

 

[Xen]

Iand the later conquest of Gaul would distract resources from expansion in the Middle East.

one of the things every one forgets (or dosent bother to learn) is that the classic eastern border of the Roman empire only came about with Vespasian, who annexed most of the Roman client states in the east; while I love Vespasian, I think this was firm mistake in Imperial policy; now, lets assume for what ever reason, a slower, peicemeal gallic conquest prevent this from eve rhappening; its very likelly that A)Rome will form an Army even more effective in the ranges of central europe B)the classic client state defense of the east remains, or lasts longer- rather anti-climaticlly for many of you, thise verlly likelly results in ana even bigger, stronger Roman empire

 

[von_Seydlitz]

What about an alternate history, where the huns don't invade europe and the invasion of the barbarians doesn't take place? That takes, at least for the moment, pressure from germanic and celtic tribes and, following, from the Roman Empire...

 

[Xen]

in that case eastern rome continues on its path more or less unmolested (though actually perhapos makes gains in the east, agianst the Persians), western Romes actual power still wanes, but it isnt broken; fully possible that the west could continue in a form that resembles the kingdom of the Ostrogoths (or, interestlly, what Ravenna looks like the current NNES) with most of the west taken up by "barbarians" but a core still retianed by Rome; but Imperial power in the west was still decadent and ineffecient, it woudl take a strong, fully native leader, such as the historic Personality of Liberius rising to power to really set it back on track.

 

[von_Seydlitz]

Yes, what that was pointing to was a rather "undisturbed" competition between the Roman Empire and Celtic/Germanic tribes for western Europe.

 

[Xen]

well, thier wasnt a "competition"; the Germans mind you never actually conqoured anything; they begged Rome to be let in and settle, and when Rome did so, after they establsihed themselves, they rebelled, and betrayed Rome (this sort of thign directlly led to mistreatment the ostrogoths got in the east)

 

[das]

I think this was firm mistake in Imperial policy

Can't say I agree. The vassal states were mostly meddlesome and unreliable; thus, direct control was required...

rather anti-climaticlly for many of you, thise verlly likelly results in ana even bigger, stronger Roman empire

Stronger, long-living, yes. Bigger? Why, if it keeps all those vassal states? Unless it somehow conquers Germany as well...

Incidentally, what are the precedents for nations keeping such vassal states for a long time? Eventually, they always seem to be annexed or they break away...

What about an alternate history, where the huns don't invade europe and the invasion of the barbarians doesn't take place? That takes, at least for the moment, pressure from germanic and celtic tribes and, following, from the Roman Empire...

Problematically... where are we going to move the Huns? The most obvious version is to keep them in Central Asia, and have them invade and conquer Persia ("Parthians-2"). That will create some interesting competition for Eastern Romans, possibly forcing them out of Syria and Palestine. On the other hand, the Sassanids are still strong, so also possibly the Ephtalid Empire would collapse soon after the long, bloody conquest, and the Eastern Romans will be able to permanently secure Mesopatamia. Then again, there might be an earlier Arabic Rise due to the instability in Persia... many possibilities, basically.

Liberius

Pardon my ignorance, but Liberius the Pope? A Holy Roman Empire that is really Holy, Roman and Imperial?

 

[das]

(this sort of thign directlly led to mistreatment the ostrogoths got in the east)

I was under impression that it was the other way around. The Goths (expelled by the Huns, btw) settled in Roman territory, were harassed by Roman officials and rebelled.

They really don't rebel for no reason, Xen...

 

[Xen]

Can't say I agree. The vassal states were mostly meddlesome and unreliable; thus, direct control was required...

to say such a thing is to lack the knowledge of the Roman politics when it came to those vassal nations; they are actually superior in many respects because you have a high leval of indipendent, effective control of armed forces that will stand along you banner without having to deal with the natives, foot the bill, or worry about a general wantign to become emperor, all whiel having forces that can be diveted to other frontirs to expand; gifts, treaties, actual friendships, the universal hatred of the parthians, and of course, the ever present threat of bloody Roman reprisal shoudl treachry come means that, agian, Rome only need put minial garrisons int he east while its allies and clients guard the eastern frontirs with skilled forces specilized for the area

Stronger, long-living, yes. Bigger? Why, if it keeps all those vassal states? Unless it somehow conquers Germany as well...

peice meal conquest allows for effective means of command and control being set up, as well as skilled commanders who are use to the conditions in upper gual and the Germanies coming into office; two invaluble things to allow an effective conquest of Germany right up to the oder, and perhaps beyond

Incidentally, what are the precedents for nations keeping such vassal states for a long time? Eventually, they always seem to be annexed or they break away...

well Rome kepts its for hundreds of years; armenia, litterally, over a thousand- they can last a very long time, its only modern politics that has trouble with such concepts

Problematically... where are we going to move the Huns? The most obvious version is to keep them in Central Asia, and have them invade and conquer Persia ("Parthians-2"). That will create some interesting competition for Eastern Romans, possibly forcing them out of Syria and Palestine. On the other hand, the Sassanids are still strong, so also possibly the Ephtalid Empire would collapse soon after the long, bloody conquest, and the Eastern Romans will be able to permanently secure Mesopatamia. Then again, there might be an earlier Arabic Rise due to the instability in Persia... many possibilities, basically.

its always about the arabs for you isnt it that said, the frontir zone along

the Roman east reamined stable for a reason; the jebel-sinjar "mountain" range offered natual protection and stability, and the Roman fronti zone, established along it offered natual protection from North East; the only real vector of attack on the Roman east, unless you wanted to go west from Dura Europus (in the times the Parthians actually owned it, which wasnt that often) and even then you can either wander south into the deep desert, or smack right into the Palmyran client state, until it was destroyed (but if we're going by the slow gallic idea, thier is no garuntee such a fate would end up for Palmyra)- the arabs ONLY got what they got because both the Sassanids and the eastern Romans were weak; no huns, or no huns europe throws everything up into the air, but generally in Romes favor

Pardon my ignorance, but Liberius the Pope? A Holy Roman Empire that is really Holy, Roman and Imperial?

Liberius the Patrician; a Roman whom was a made a nobleman under Ostrogothic domination of Italy, and continued to be franchised by the Byzantines, conqouring Southern SPain for them (despite his old age by that time) what most dont knwo is that under the ostrogths he had created an efficient tax tax system, and for the first time since, more or less, Diocletian, Italy was generating positive and sruplus revenue with minimal taxation; more interestinglly, are points that indicate he was estbalishing a native militia in italy, and who knows;an aspiring young Roman, enfranchised by the Ostrogoths at the head of a native army... a good position to marry an Ostrogothic noble woman giving him legitmacy, but haveing a native army... could make interesting results (of cours,e I much prefer the geneology I laid out earlier in teh thread for the restored Roman empire, or rather, teh kingdom of Rome, in which a descendent of Liberius becomes king after marring a descendent of Belisarius, whos famill had made many political marriges bringing assorted barbarians under thier grasp, or entered into a vassal state)

 

[Xen]

I was under impression that it was the other way around. The Goths (expelled by the Huns, btw) settled in Roman territory, were harassed by Roman officials and rebelled.

you rimpression is correct; it was betray in the east, and a general stimga of the barbarians in general that lead to Roman harrasment of the Ostrogoths, and in turn, to thier rebellion.

They really don't rebel for no reason, Xen...

they do when they are barbarians

 

[das]

About vassals - I'm not speaking about Rome, I'm speaking about the general situation. Rome annexed vassals, France annexed vassals, Russia annexed vassals. Who didn't annex them? Anyhow, its about the degree to which one trusts those vassals. They only are loyal when they have use for a dominant state that will protect them; once they feel themselves to be strong enough, they will try to become independant.

Btw, we still didn't establish the situation with Rome itself - who will overthrow the Republic, and when?

only modern politics that has trouble with such concepts

Huh? Didn't get that, really. Vassal states in the modern world tend to be more durable. Still, Rome kept it for a while, doesn't mean they would keep them FOREVER. Either they break away themselves, or they are annexed.

its always about the arabs for you isnt it

No, it isn't. I suspect you westerners don't read Gumilev, but anyhow, I really doubt that Arabs are likely to remain inactive. Given opportunity, they are rather liable to awaken and conquer.

the arabs ONLY got what they got because both the Sassanids and the eastern Romans were weak; no huns, or no huns europe throws everything up into the air, but generally in Romes favor

Hmm? If we suppose that the Ephtalid Empire does survive, there is likely to be a similar situation, maybe better, maybe worse. So...

Btw, by tossing out the Huns, we still will eventually get whoever is next in line, probably doing something similar, but later.

Liberius the Patrician; a Roman whom was a made a nobleman under Ostrogothic domination of Italy, and continued to be franchised by the Byzantines, conqouring Southern SPain for them (despite his old age by that time) what most dont knwo is that under the ostrogths he had created an efficient tax tax system, and for the first time since, more or less, Diocletian, Italy was generating positive and sruplus revenue with minimal taxation; more interestinglly, are points that indicate he was estbalishing a native militia in italy, and who knows;an aspiring young Roman, enfranchised by the Ostrogoths at the head of a native army... a good position to marry an Ostrogothic noble woman giving him legitmacy, but haveing a native army... could make interesting results (of cours,e I much prefer the geneology I laid out earlier in teh thread for the restored Roman empire, or rather, teh kingdom of Rome, in which a descendent of Liberius becomes king after marring a descendent of Belisarius, whos famill had made many political marriges bringing assorted barbarians under thier grasp, or entered into a vassal state)

What are the chances he will be born? Isn't it easier to just make up your own historical characters at random?

you rimpression is correct; it was betray in the east, and a general stimga of the barbarians in general that lead to Roman harrasment of the Ostrogoths, and in turn, to thier rebellion.

Huh? Who betrayed them in the east? The vassals?

 

[von_Seydlitz]

Problematically... where are we going to move the Huns?

I was rather thinking about not moving them at all. Just imagine Dschingis Khan is killed in mongolic tribe feuds and does not unite the tribes after that. That's what I had in mind...

they begged Rome to be let in and settle, and when Rome did so, after they establsihed themselves, they rebelled, and betrayed Rome

Well, but they did so mainly because of the invasion of the huns... my interest was actually founded on the base of what would happen if this had not happened and the roman territory would not have been shrinking in this way, at least not that fast.

 

[alex994]

I was rather thinking about not moving them at all. Just imagine Dschingis Khan is killed in mongolic tribe feuds and does not unite the tribes after that. That's what I had in mind...

Heresy! They have to be moved! I don't care what happens after they move, but they're moving! The Han Emperors would never allow the Xiong-Nu to just say up north and keep raiding them, you have to study the issue from both sides. For example, why was the Xiong-Nu driven away in the first place?

Once more i reiterate, the Xiong-Nu would be driven off, and the consequences would have been similar. But maybe they say went to around Afghanistan and then decided to invade India?

 

[von_Seydlitz]

Heresy! They have to be moved! I don't care what happens after they move, but they're moving! The Han Emperors would never allow the Xiong-Nu to just say up north and keep raiding them, you have to study the issue from both sides. For example, why was the Xiong-Nu driven away in the first place?

Once more i reiterate, the Xiong-Nu would be driven off, and the consequences would have been similar. But maybe they say went to around Afghanistan and then decided to invade India?

Pff, now you guys annoy me and drive me in more and more unlikely scenarios...


Attila takes a look over to the clan leaders, feeling proud that they are now under his command, and looks forward to conquering the world. He raises his arm and...
... and an egyptian housewife goes mad, because somehow their house was shaking a bit and her meal, almost ready to be served, fell unto the floor. What she doesn't know is that actually, this little earthquake was caused a few minutes ago by a fragment of a comet, 800m in diameter, which kissed the earth, exactly beneath Attilas camp - a rather dearly kiss with 18 km/s - which had, beneath the catastrophy of robbing the meal of numerous egyptian families, the sideeffect that Attila and most of his subjects have sublimated. But well, that's history.

Now you made it, you have driven my great and unachievable idea into a bunch of crap and idioty.

 

[das]

I was rather thinking about not moving them at all.

Mongolia was not exactly a nice and pleasant place. It was large, true, but there was not enough FOOD there for the growing Xiong-nu populations. Some of them had to go, thus...

Just imagine Dschingis Khan is killed in mongolic tribe feuds and does not unite the tribes after that.

Huh? What does that have to do with the Huns?

Once more i reiterate, the Xiong-Nu would be driven off, and the consequences would have been similar. But maybe they say went to around Afghanistan and then decided to invade India?

They did do that in OTL. Some of them did. Others went for Europe... IMHO they should be moved to Central Asia as in OTL, but then they should join their forces and conquer Persia.