von_Seydlitz
Warlord
- Joined
- Aug 4, 2005
- Messages
- 269
das said:
lol.. that's a good question. Excuse me to be rather confused after having two great hours of sleep.
Alternate History NESes; Spout some ideas!
- Thread starter Amenhotep7
- Start date
lol.. that's a good question. Excuse me to be rather confused after having two great hours of sleep.
here you'll need to be corrected Rome ddint annex vassals Vespasian annexed vassals- after Vespasian you see (failed) efforts to restor client states, and obviouslly enough, the only time Rome annexed a vassal was temporary annexation of Judea, which was restored to client state status once a new heir worthy of its throne (eg; compitent enough to lead a nation, and happy enough being an ally of Rome)- you cant make a carpet statement liek that because the majority of Roman history has it trying to regain what Vespasian lost it, a good system of eastern client statesdas said:
Btw, we still didn't establish the situation with Rome itself - who will overthrow the Republic, and when?
pish, tell that Iraq and the Ukrain
Aremnia only got desperate; if a certian seriesof event hand happend it woudl have contiued to be a Roman vassal state, and bearing in mind it was one for over a mellenia, your on the short end of the stick; Roman politics generally dosent mirror most other nations' exchanges, except from where one has an incomplete grasp of the situation; even with a more complete grasp, the vagueries of Roman politics are many and varried; surfice to say, Rome liked vassal states, and it liked the status quo it had in the early empire
never heard of him, regardless, i have yet to see any evidence that they woudl anything other then sit on thier arses had mohammed not come along, but we already knopw that, so its no use getting into that argument again
the next major wave is the alans, but they coem so much later that soem really significant developments could occure
fairlly good, actually; none of his familly members woudl have been in the military for several generations, rather safeguarding his line from disruption
rarelly.
the Ostrogoths werent vassals; they wer elittle better then free-men, as they didnt have citizenship rights, but were above slaves; and while semi-indipendent in fact, they were supposed to sub-servient to the emperor; in other words no, the vassals didnt betray them; barbarian free-loading beggers didHuh? Who betrayed them in the east? The vassals?
von_Seydlitz said:
the Trend has started a godo deal earlier though- strong emperors like DIocletian had been able to get away with it by giving tiny parcels of land on the border, and excesizing strong control, and not beign afraid to use force to put them in line when needed (and to that end, DIocletian had the forces needed to do this; constantine ruined the system, and the bank of force future emperors woudl have to draw from)
alex994
Hail Divine Emperor!
Xen said:they also wouldnt have allowed the mongol invasion of china, had the chinese emperors of the time been able to stop it
ahh xen in Chinese history you're a simple novice
China wasn't unified at the time of the Mongols and thus were easy prey for the Mongolians while during the times of the Xiong Nu China was unified under a strong central Government 
Insane_Panda
Deity
@Reno: I can do the stats if you want. 
Reno
The Studio Ghibli Fanatic
Thanks, though wait until you see the preview thread wich i'll post soon.
Insane_Panda
Deity
Alrighty then. Das, Im going to need lists of basic strengths in certain fields like army size, training, etc. Like the thing you did for azale.
das
Regeneration In Process
You contradict yourself. Vespasian was the absolute ruler of Rome.
You confuse me. Iraq wasn't a puppet state, well, until now possibly. If you acknowledge Ukraine-1918 or Ukraine-1941 to be a STATE, then it wasn't annexed by the puppeters, rather by their enemies.
So...
Yes, quite. For how long?
Didn't get that. No substantial difference from the politics of many other empires. Admittedly, the policy of each empire is unique, but there are many parallels.
Sentiments change...
Okay, here we disagree with you on principle, and IMHO this is an important argument to which we keep coming back. A very important argument, about the importance of personality.
IMHO Mohammed wasn't some sort of an alien progressor who was the only one who possibly could have united the Arabs and utilized their full potential. IMHO an Arab Genghis Khan could have appeared, or a different Mohammed. You are yet to give any reasonable argument for why a development in which Arabs, without Mohammed, still are expansionist, is impossible. Same with Mongols without Genghis Khan, etc, etc, etc. Possibly they won't do anything, but possibly they would conquer a nice chunk of the world. It COULD happen.
Problematically, if the barbarians don't do anything before the Alans come (btw, couldn't they come earlier if the Huns don't "clog up" the Steppe?), Rome will only weaken, the Western Empire anyway, and thus will be easier prey. Ofcourse, if they get a good leader they could possibly salvage the situation, partially...
BUT, one of his descendants could be killed by a Roman soldier who in OTL was killed by a Goth...
Yep, that's our principal disagreement... Different schools of Althistory!
Sorry, sorry...
The principle is the same. Once the vassals no longer feel they need Rome's protection, they will seek to break away, thinking themselves strong enough and self-sufficient enough to go for independance. It ALWAYS happens like this eventually, if the vassals aren't annexed beforehand by friend or foe.
They would have invaded it themselves, big deal...
das
Regeneration In Process
Once I'm finished with the summary history post... And that's pretty soon.
Insane_Panda
Deity
Great. Can't wait for this NES to open.
Can't wait for this NES to open.
das
Regeneration In Process
1598-1800. Summary.
Due to some minor, insignificant changes from OTL in the tumoltous year 1598, Philaret/Fyodor Romanov, the father of OTL's first Romanov tsar, does NOT in 1610 try to arrange for Prince Wladyslaw of Poland to rise to the throne. Instead, Philaret in ATL supports Patriarch Hermogen's resistance and indeed allows it to survive for some time rather then fall apart immediately. Long story cut short, the Russians defeat Poland's eastwards expansionism just like in OTL, but Fyodor (III), rather then his reluctant son, becomes the first Tsar. Interestingly, he still does become a Patriarch as well, creating something of an Anglican-type tradition.
The results are several. Albeit in OTL Philaret was the main power behind the throne for the rest of his life anyway, here he must concentrate on affairs of state more then on the affairs of Church - hence, when the raskol does happen its not the archconservative elements in the Church that break off and begin to cause trouble, but rather Orthodox Reformists. Also, for butterfly reasons, Sigismund III of Poland died rather earlier. His son, Wladyslaw, does not (like in OTL) have to fight off Russian, Turkish and Swedish attacks upon his ascendancy, and hence is more agressive, whilst the Sejm of Poland does not expressively disagree with his ambitious martial plans. Thus, Poland enters the Thirty Years War in 1632... and in the same year, Russia joins in on the Protestant side, bribed by Swedish offers of Ingria. Poland's entry actually helps Sweden - not only does it prevent the OTL Battle at Lutzen and Gustavus' early death, but it also scares the northern German states into cooperating with their Swedish allies. This solves Sweden's primary problem during the Thirty Years War, temporarily at least.
By 1635, Poland was knocked out of the war by the long-living Gustavus Adolphus, Wladyslaw IV dying in battle to be replaced by Jan II who after Warsaw itself was besieged agreed to cede numerous territories. The Swedes, strenghthened and no longer distracted by the possible Polish intervention, managed to, in alliance with Holland and France, deliver a devastating blow to the Habsburgs, or several blows - first in the Low Countries, then in Rhineland and finally in Bohemia and Austria. The Holy Roman Empire ceased to exist, most of Germany joined into Corpus Evangelicorum under Swedish protection, Belgium was partitioned between France and Holland, and the former also grabbed Franche Comte and Catalonia. Austria was reduced to... Austria itself only, Bohemia passing on to the Protestant, or Rhenish, Wittelsbachs. Austrian Habsburgs would be finally exterminated in the Eight Years War, when they supported France over Sweden.
Prince Rupert in this world was never captured by Austrians and had even more battle experience from the Thirty Years War. He helped Charles I of England in the formation of his own army (persuading him not to rely on loyalist militias which will be reluctant to fight outside of their own lands), and when the English Civil War came (later then in OTL) the Parliamentaries were knocked out by a three-pronged attack on London. That is, they, especially Cromwell in the north, tried to fight on, but they were eventually defeated and had to retreat to Scotland, where they assisted the anti-Royalist Lord Argyll in preventing a restoration of Charles to the Scottish throne. After a brutal civil war in Scotland itself, a radical republic emerged; it, combined with John Locke being more embittered due to his expulsion from England, would eventually inspire an early rise of Radical Republicanism, culminating in the Four Years (1728-1732). Also, this, combined with the lack of Cromwell's radical military reforms, resulted in a generally-weaker England (as it was distracted to fighting Scotts and their Swedish allies, and thus unable to concentrate on building up naval power), not to mention an unstable one after the de facto triumph of English Counter-Reformation in the latter years of Charles II's reign. Also, England underwent a total imposition of absolute monarchy. Ireland was divided between England and Scotland during this time.
Post-Treaty of Madrid Europe was dominated by Sweden and France. Whilst France was allied to England, Portugal, Denmark, Poland and the various Italian states, Sweden was allied with Scotland, Holland, Spain, the German Confederation (which gradually, especially after the personal union of Bohemia and Sweden under Charles X, became integrated with Sweden) and Russia. A standard tactic was inciting rebellions in each other's lands: France destabilized Germany and Poland frequently allied with Cossacks, whilst the Swedes loved to cause havoc in England. The first war - Eight Years War (1666-1674) - went rather mixedly, and so did the peace treaty; albeit Poland and France gained numerous lands in Europe (France expanded in Rhineland, Poland retook Podolia), in the colonies Holland gained much and kept most of it, and the Austrian Habsburgs were dispossessed. Most notably, Holland succsefully held on to northern Brazil, confirmed as theirs in the previous Treaty of Madrid. This war itself ended with the Treaty of Westphalia, the main problem of which was that, in appeasing France and Poland with territorial gains, it left them hungry for more...
The traditional goal for French expansionism in post-Madrid Europe was Rhineland; border on the Rhine was the dream of all French monarchs. However, the First Rhenish War (1683-1687) was a horrible disaster; numerous French and Polish gains of the previous war were reversed altogether, Catalonia and Trent gain independance and parts of Greater Lithuania were conquered by the Russians. Incidentally, the Russians by then were in an interesting situation, modernizing but not excessively westernizing (think OTL Meiji Japan). Said modernization allowed them to win in this war and in a war with Turkey over Azov. The First Rhenish War was also important in the Americas, albeit only one significant change took place - namely, the Virginian Republic was saved from destruction and persisted, albeit soon enough it was once more threatened by the English, from the south, from Carolina this time. The independance of Virginia served as an inspiration for future rebellions...
Either way, the debacle of the First Rhenish War made the new French king, Louis XV the Iron-willed, undertake numerous administrative, financial and military reforms - said reforms would become significant later on. On a somewhat-unrelated note, China's defeat in the First Sino-Russian War resulted in numerous Dutch-assisted reforms; the French, meanwhile, fearful of Dutch hegemony in Southeast Asia, assisted Siam in its drive to modernization; the Siamese used this well, to strenghthen their commerce and to conquer their enemies.
The Second Rhenish War (1718-1724) fully demonstrated the usefulness of French reforms - the French armies devastated Spain, penetrated (with rebel assistance) deep into Belgium and Germany, and only in Italy was the hesitation of one of their commanders fatal for the warplan. Still, the French continued to attack until anti-war sentiments begun to grow (especially as Poland was on the retreat). Eventually, a peace treaty was signed restoring several territories to France and recognizing numerous changes in the colonies (English conquest of Florida, Chinese confiscation of Macao, Dutch conquest of Mozambik and Calicut...), whilst Poland regained some of the territory lost in the First Rhenish War.
The Spanish Empire was badly wrecked during all the wars of the time, and begun to falter, eventually succumbing (in the midst of the Second Rhenish War) into a full-fledged civil war between liberals and conservatives. Liberals won, but in late 18th century they were overthrown again. During all this time, the Spaniards lost most of their colonies to Holland, France and local rebels; out of the latter, Habsburg Mexico, Grenadine Republic, Incan Empire and United Jesuit Provinces of La Plata emerged.
Due to the social and economic damage caused by the war, instability became widespread not only in Spain, but elsewhere in Europe as well. Most significantly, civil wars started in England (Parliamentarist victory; United Republic is unstable and barely fights off a Scottish invasion of Wales; a very limited monarchy under a cadet branch of the Bourbons replaces the United Republic, but a Stuart pretender fled to the colonies to found the absolutist Kingdom of Carolina), France (after a drawn-out struggle, Louis XV manages to divide his enemies and crush them, consolidating his absolute power further), Italy (revolution in the Papal States succeeds, a Corsican lawyer Paolo Buonoparte becomes the de facto dictator and eventually unifies Italy; later, founds the Roman Empire, but keeps many of his radical reforms in place) and Poland (the Royal Republic is overthrown by the Sejm itself; the Sejm is then overthrown by Teodor Sikorsky's followers, who form the People's Republic and grant Sikorsky dictatorial capacities). Poland, whose army was greatly expanded and reformed by Sikorsky, won battle after battle, forcing Russia into an alliance with it against Sweden and then invading Swedish Germany (the personal union of Sweden and Germany was confirmed by the Ausgleich of 1735). Eventually, however, internal divisions led to a counter-revolution, and the Polish Civil War recommenced, whilst Russia once more allied with Sweden in exchange for the Pribaltic provinces. Sikorsky himself (probably) perished in 1738, at Slonim; soon after that, a Royal Republic that was little more then a Swedish puppet state was created, whilst Russia annexed vast territories, namely the Greater Lithuania (as of Lublin Union).
The main consequence of these civil wars, also known collectively as the First Revolutionary War, could be said to be the severe weakening of Sweden and France alike, preventing the two from fighting each other much during the rest of the 18th century. The other reasons they didn't fight each other were their increasing fear of revolts and of the rising powers of Rome and Russia.
Russia has, during late 17th/early 18th century, undergone something of a Meiji Restoration, i.e. modernization without westernization. It also was involved in two wars with China, one in late 17th century and another in early 18th; the ultimate result was a partitioning of Central Asia between the two powers, and also the Chinese reconquest of the Amur region prompted Russia to expand southwards; using the vacuum of power in Persia that came after the fall of the Afghan Empire, the Russians took over that country, and when in 1754-1757 the Great Turkish War took place, the Russians managed to support Mameluk rebels in Iraq. The Great Turkish War, fought by Romans, Russians and Petofi's Hungarian rebels against the Ottoman Empire, greatly weakened the Turks, but on the other hand prompted a desperate reform effort there. Indeed, it was a rude awakening - Rome took Tunisia, Tripolitania, Cyreneica, Illyria, Ionian Islands and Greece, Hungary gained independance, Russia took over Yedisan, Crimea and Caucasia and created an allied state in Iraq. Also, Portugal and France used the chaos in territories west from Tunisia, and took Morocco and Algiers respectively.
The Portuguese, as of late 18th century, underwent something of a renaissance, expanding in Africa. The Dutch were still predominant in South Asia, but the rise of the hostile Siam and Maratha in Indochina and India respectively caused no small amount of worry in Amsterdam. Ofcourse, the former was balanced against China (which still retained some pro-Dutch sympathies, despite the Formosan War) and the latter against the Dutch allies in Gujarat and Mysore... but for how long would this balance be kept, especially with the Russian threat in the Indian Ocean?
Still, late 18th century was, for the most part, a quiet, peaceful time when compared to the preceding ones. But in reality, it was only a quiet before the storm. Revolutionary movements gained strenght, great powers, old and new, built up their armies and economies... and inevitably, came the Year 1800 A.D. And then, all the hell broke loose...
Due to some minor, insignificant changes from OTL in the tumoltous year 1598, Philaret/Fyodor Romanov, the father of OTL's first Romanov tsar, does NOT in 1610 try to arrange for Prince Wladyslaw of Poland to rise to the throne. Instead, Philaret in ATL supports Patriarch Hermogen's resistance and indeed allows it to survive for some time rather then fall apart immediately. Long story cut short, the Russians defeat Poland's eastwards expansionism just like in OTL, but Fyodor (III), rather then his reluctant son, becomes the first Tsar. Interestingly, he still does become a Patriarch as well, creating something of an Anglican-type tradition.
The results are several. Albeit in OTL Philaret was the main power behind the throne for the rest of his life anyway, here he must concentrate on affairs of state more then on the affairs of Church - hence, when the raskol does happen its not the archconservative elements in the Church that break off and begin to cause trouble, but rather Orthodox Reformists. Also, for butterfly reasons, Sigismund III of Poland died rather earlier. His son, Wladyslaw, does not (like in OTL) have to fight off Russian, Turkish and Swedish attacks upon his ascendancy, and hence is more agressive, whilst the Sejm of Poland does not expressively disagree with his ambitious martial plans. Thus, Poland enters the Thirty Years War in 1632... and in the same year, Russia joins in on the Protestant side, bribed by Swedish offers of Ingria. Poland's entry actually helps Sweden - not only does it prevent the OTL Battle at Lutzen and Gustavus' early death, but it also scares the northern German states into cooperating with their Swedish allies. This solves Sweden's primary problem during the Thirty Years War, temporarily at least.
By 1635, Poland was knocked out of the war by the long-living Gustavus Adolphus, Wladyslaw IV dying in battle to be replaced by Jan II who after Warsaw itself was besieged agreed to cede numerous territories. The Swedes, strenghthened and no longer distracted by the possible Polish intervention, managed to, in alliance with Holland and France, deliver a devastating blow to the Habsburgs, or several blows - first in the Low Countries, then in Rhineland and finally in Bohemia and Austria. The Holy Roman Empire ceased to exist, most of Germany joined into Corpus Evangelicorum under Swedish protection, Belgium was partitioned between France and Holland, and the former also grabbed Franche Comte and Catalonia. Austria was reduced to... Austria itself only, Bohemia passing on to the Protestant, or Rhenish, Wittelsbachs. Austrian Habsburgs would be finally exterminated in the Eight Years War, when they supported France over Sweden.
Prince Rupert in this world was never captured by Austrians and had even more battle experience from the Thirty Years War. He helped Charles I of England in the formation of his own army (persuading him not to rely on loyalist militias which will be reluctant to fight outside of their own lands), and when the English Civil War came (later then in OTL) the Parliamentaries were knocked out by a three-pronged attack on London. That is, they, especially Cromwell in the north, tried to fight on, but they were eventually defeated and had to retreat to Scotland, where they assisted the anti-Royalist Lord Argyll in preventing a restoration of Charles to the Scottish throne. After a brutal civil war in Scotland itself, a radical republic emerged; it, combined with John Locke being more embittered due to his expulsion from England, would eventually inspire an early rise of Radical Republicanism, culminating in the Four Years (1728-1732). Also, this, combined with the lack of Cromwell's radical military reforms, resulted in a generally-weaker England (as it was distracted to fighting Scotts and their Swedish allies, and thus unable to concentrate on building up naval power), not to mention an unstable one after the de facto triumph of English Counter-Reformation in the latter years of Charles II's reign. Also, England underwent a total imposition of absolute monarchy. Ireland was divided between England and Scotland during this time.
Post-Treaty of Madrid Europe was dominated by Sweden and France. Whilst France was allied to England, Portugal, Denmark, Poland and the various Italian states, Sweden was allied with Scotland, Holland, Spain, the German Confederation (which gradually, especially after the personal union of Bohemia and Sweden under Charles X, became integrated with Sweden) and Russia. A standard tactic was inciting rebellions in each other's lands: France destabilized Germany and Poland frequently allied with Cossacks, whilst the Swedes loved to cause havoc in England. The first war - Eight Years War (1666-1674) - went rather mixedly, and so did the peace treaty; albeit Poland and France gained numerous lands in Europe (France expanded in Rhineland, Poland retook Podolia), in the colonies Holland gained much and kept most of it, and the Austrian Habsburgs were dispossessed. Most notably, Holland succsefully held on to northern Brazil, confirmed as theirs in the previous Treaty of Madrid. This war itself ended with the Treaty of Westphalia, the main problem of which was that, in appeasing France and Poland with territorial gains, it left them hungry for more...
The traditional goal for French expansionism in post-Madrid Europe was Rhineland; border on the Rhine was the dream of all French monarchs. However, the First Rhenish War (1683-1687) was a horrible disaster; numerous French and Polish gains of the previous war were reversed altogether, Catalonia and Trent gain independance and parts of Greater Lithuania were conquered by the Russians. Incidentally, the Russians by then were in an interesting situation, modernizing but not excessively westernizing (think OTL Meiji Japan). Said modernization allowed them to win in this war and in a war with Turkey over Azov. The First Rhenish War was also important in the Americas, albeit only one significant change took place - namely, the Virginian Republic was saved from destruction and persisted, albeit soon enough it was once more threatened by the English, from the south, from Carolina this time. The independance of Virginia served as an inspiration for future rebellions...
Either way, the debacle of the First Rhenish War made the new French king, Louis XV the Iron-willed, undertake numerous administrative, financial and military reforms - said reforms would become significant later on. On a somewhat-unrelated note, China's defeat in the First Sino-Russian War resulted in numerous Dutch-assisted reforms; the French, meanwhile, fearful of Dutch hegemony in Southeast Asia, assisted Siam in its drive to modernization; the Siamese used this well, to strenghthen their commerce and to conquer their enemies.
The Second Rhenish War (1718-1724) fully demonstrated the usefulness of French reforms - the French armies devastated Spain, penetrated (with rebel assistance) deep into Belgium and Germany, and only in Italy was the hesitation of one of their commanders fatal for the warplan. Still, the French continued to attack until anti-war sentiments begun to grow (especially as Poland was on the retreat). Eventually, a peace treaty was signed restoring several territories to France and recognizing numerous changes in the colonies (English conquest of Florida, Chinese confiscation of Macao, Dutch conquest of Mozambik and Calicut...), whilst Poland regained some of the territory lost in the First Rhenish War.
The Spanish Empire was badly wrecked during all the wars of the time, and begun to falter, eventually succumbing (in the midst of the Second Rhenish War) into a full-fledged civil war between liberals and conservatives. Liberals won, but in late 18th century they were overthrown again. During all this time, the Spaniards lost most of their colonies to Holland, France and local rebels; out of the latter, Habsburg Mexico, Grenadine Republic, Incan Empire and United Jesuit Provinces of La Plata emerged.
Due to the social and economic damage caused by the war, instability became widespread not only in Spain, but elsewhere in Europe as well. Most significantly, civil wars started in England (Parliamentarist victory; United Republic is unstable and barely fights off a Scottish invasion of Wales; a very limited monarchy under a cadet branch of the Bourbons replaces the United Republic, but a Stuart pretender fled to the colonies to found the absolutist Kingdom of Carolina), France (after a drawn-out struggle, Louis XV manages to divide his enemies and crush them, consolidating his absolute power further), Italy (revolution in the Papal States succeeds, a Corsican lawyer Paolo Buonoparte becomes the de facto dictator and eventually unifies Italy; later, founds the Roman Empire, but keeps many of his radical reforms in place) and Poland (the Royal Republic is overthrown by the Sejm itself; the Sejm is then overthrown by Teodor Sikorsky's followers, who form the People's Republic and grant Sikorsky dictatorial capacities). Poland, whose army was greatly expanded and reformed by Sikorsky, won battle after battle, forcing Russia into an alliance with it against Sweden and then invading Swedish Germany (the personal union of Sweden and Germany was confirmed by the Ausgleich of 1735). Eventually, however, internal divisions led to a counter-revolution, and the Polish Civil War recommenced, whilst Russia once more allied with Sweden in exchange for the Pribaltic provinces. Sikorsky himself (probably) perished in 1738, at Slonim; soon after that, a Royal Republic that was little more then a Swedish puppet state was created, whilst Russia annexed vast territories, namely the Greater Lithuania (as of Lublin Union).
The main consequence of these civil wars, also known collectively as the First Revolutionary War, could be said to be the severe weakening of Sweden and France alike, preventing the two from fighting each other much during the rest of the 18th century. The other reasons they didn't fight each other were their increasing fear of revolts and of the rising powers of Rome and Russia.
Russia has, during late 17th/early 18th century, undergone something of a Meiji Restoration, i.e. modernization without westernization. It also was involved in two wars with China, one in late 17th century and another in early 18th; the ultimate result was a partitioning of Central Asia between the two powers, and also the Chinese reconquest of the Amur region prompted Russia to expand southwards; using the vacuum of power in Persia that came after the fall of the Afghan Empire, the Russians took over that country, and when in 1754-1757 the Great Turkish War took place, the Russians managed to support Mameluk rebels in Iraq. The Great Turkish War, fought by Romans, Russians and Petofi's Hungarian rebels against the Ottoman Empire, greatly weakened the Turks, but on the other hand prompted a desperate reform effort there. Indeed, it was a rude awakening - Rome took Tunisia, Tripolitania, Cyreneica, Illyria, Ionian Islands and Greece, Hungary gained independance, Russia took over Yedisan, Crimea and Caucasia and created an allied state in Iraq. Also, Portugal and France used the chaos in territories west from Tunisia, and took Morocco and Algiers respectively.
The Portuguese, as of late 18th century, underwent something of a renaissance, expanding in Africa. The Dutch were still predominant in South Asia, but the rise of the hostile Siam and Maratha in Indochina and India respectively caused no small amount of worry in Amsterdam. Ofcourse, the former was balanced against China (which still retained some pro-Dutch sympathies, despite the Formosan War) and the latter against the Dutch allies in Gujarat and Mysore... but for how long would this balance be kept, especially with the Russian threat in the Indian Ocean?
Still, late 18th century was, for the most part, a quiet, peaceful time when compared to the preceding ones. But in reality, it was only a quiet before the storm. Revolutionary movements gained strenght, great powers, old and new, built up their armies and economies... and inevitably, came the Year 1800 A.D. And then, all the hell broke loose...
Question i have been wanting to ask, if USA did not get involved in WWII, say Japan attacked USSR in conjunction with Germany or something.
(America still does land lease, but neutral)
Would the Atom bomb have been developed in time for the war? Would Germanies ad Japans Token efforts have succeded? (i have read them being described as token). Or would Britain or the USSR have done it? (this might involve having to rejiggle things so all the atomic scientists went to Britain instead of America).
What i was wondering is the final effect on the world, as the peace would be different. (hoping for an Allied win still, but that might be impossible *shrug*. still say if britain Atom Bombed Berlin, Killing hitler etc)
(America still does land lease, but neutral)
Would the Atom bomb have been developed in time for the war? Would Germanies ad Japans Token efforts have succeded? (i have read them being described as token). Or would Britain or the USSR have done it? (this might involve having to rejiggle things so all the atomic scientists went to Britain instead of America).
What i was wondering is the final effect on the world, as the peace would be different. (hoping for an Allied win still, but that might be impossible *shrug*. still say if britain Atom Bombed Berlin, Killing hitler etc)
das
Regeneration In Process
Problem - USA was already waging an undeclared war against Germany. Not only landlease, but also the submarines... And Japan needed to get oil - something unavailable in the Russian Far East at the time.
Why not?
It all depends on how the Battle at Moscow folds out... Germans might win the battle if the Soviets are distracted in the Far East, and the war in USSR largely depended on that battle. Then again, a German victory was far from granted even without Soviet reinforcements, and if they fail to take Moscow in the first assault then they are, short of a very succesful Stalingrad (and that is even less likely then in OTL without a Soviet Winter Offensive to take away many resources), doomed. As for Japan, they would probably have been pushed back across Manchuria - their tanks were far inferior to Soviet ones, so we might get something of a Soviet blitzkrieg there, though ofcourse nothing like OTL's walkover.
The fates of the world would depend on the outcome of the Battle at Moscow... If the Soviets lose, the Germans would probably still have been destroyed by systematic nuclear and aerial bombardment, lest they invent nukes of their own, in which case they win WWII, i.e. keep their European gains.
das
Regeneration In Process
So, we decide that Germans win the war in Russia, but then are, along with Japan (Or does Japan continue to sit it out after USSR collapses and survives into the Cold War?), bombed into nonexistance. Rather likely that the Third Reich would face a violent collapse due to rebellions amidst nuclear destruction; the lack of clear leaders will probably result in a period of anarchy, possibly with runaway puppets (i.e. Vlasov in Russia, Petain in France, etc...) suddenly siding with the Allies to finish off the remnants of Germany.
Um, I'll consider this scenario later, when I have more time.
Um, I'll consider this scenario later, when I have more time.
Symphony D.
Deity
Germany's efforts were sufficiently far behind that they only could have manufactured a dirty bomb within any kind of reasonable time frame had the war dragged on. Given that the Allies had agreed Germany was the greater threat overall, it would be very likely that Little Boy and Fatman would've been deployed on German cities instead, along with large numbers of B-29s.Das said:
It seems pretty much a given to me that short of absolutely incredible amounts of luck, the war was lost by 1942, wins in Russia or not. The war would've just been a good deal more brutal for its remainder (probably some sort of atomic-assisted invasion to crack the Atlantic Wall if Germany could devote all its resources to guarding it). This is mostly because the Nazi leadership, was quite frankly, incompetent, and rather wasteful of resources (the search for "wonder weapons" to defeat Allied air superiority and strike at the American homeland would likely have continued).
The war would probably have ended with quite a few more than two cities nuked and America as potentially the only unscathed major nation left (short of something like, oh, a Japanese launched biological attack, which almost happened BTW).
The only real ways I can see Germany winning the war are either not invading Poland and building their technological advantage, finishing Great Britain before attacking Russia, or not declaring war on the United States after the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor. The man squarely behind all three of these things: Adolph Hitler. Unless he was removed from the equation, Germany was doomed from the start really. And if he was, odds of there being a war are much lower.
this was still the era of the Principate; Roman emperors rarelly excersized absolute control, because the vestiges of the republic were still carried fourth; it wouldnt be until Diocletian that Rome becomes an actual monarchy.; regardless of this, general forign policy wqas what the emperor decided, and with different emperors Romes takes on decidelly different personas; from the expansionist trajan to the border building Hadrian; Vespasian was about "turtle expansion"; keep rome expanding, but keep it fortified all the way through; and outstanding strategy that served the empire well in the west- where Vespasian won his fame, and his experince as a leader of men, but more poorlly in the east, where the situation was differentdas said:
yes, I'm very much talking abou the HERE, and NOW- ukrain in its previosu election now looks to the west, and has thrown off all vestiges of what coudl have been a resotred Russian satillite nation; likewise, Iraq, the nation the would be americas vassal has the more westernized sunnis fighting agianst the US forces, while, in a twist of irony, the shiites follow through with elections, but if they had thier way, woudl becoem an extention of Iran (all the while the Kurds are finally at peace, and are actually attracting forign investment in thier region)
So...
potentially centuries, perhaps even longer; the status qou, you must remember, was a very good one; Rome aided Armenia when the Parthians or Sassanids reared thier head; for quite awhile Armeia was actually the primary peace builder between Parthia and Rome; and while Armenai was aclient state of Rome, under the proise of protection and aide, if armenia indeed needed it (and likewise for Rome;s east) Armenia grew rich off the trade routes; it was a very good arrangment, not based on control (as you seem to think all vassal realtionships are based) but of mutual benifit, and indeed, that rarelittle thing called honor
Didn't get that. No substantial difference from the politics of many other empires. Admittedly, the policy of each empire is unique, but there are many parallels.
you only say that because it suits your argument to say that; the reality is that people and nations are hard headed stubborn bastards, and rarelly change thier outlook unless somthign truelly shocking happens to change thier perspective on things
the importance of certian prestigous personalities and thier effect on history is unshackable; yes certian trends in population and culture produce results, but often in the form of special, particualry motivated people who champion these causes, and get things done in thier name; or on the other end of the spectrum, whip up a fury over thie rown cause for thier own reasons
heres a good reason; before mohammed, the arabs NEVER made a move on the civlized lands; they had no interes tor motivation to thie rother then the occasional raidl it was ONLY religious fanatism and the dream of Mohammed to expand his religion that lead to arab burst; the burden of the evidence is rather on you to prove that they would have in fact expanded with out mohammed, and the crux of history lays in that they woudl have stayed passive raiders, not conqerors
my own thougth lead me to conclude that it was th ehunnic migration that started the general trend of heading west in numbers for turkic tribes; before hand thier was a steady trickle, but only a trickle, and even then it was only of near by populatiosn shifting around; with out the huns to move about both displacing other tribes, and bumbing up the popuyaltion fo the western steppes, its hard to say what would happen
Yep, that's our principal disagreement... Different schools of Althistory!
once agian, a shoddy knowldge of mid-late Roman historey seems to beat you off track
that the thing; your principle is wrong principle; Roman policy in the east was set by A)the Parthians were hated by every one and B)If Rome wanted to, it could, and woudl conqoure the region; the client state system was not based on Roman protection, it was based on Roman aide to nations who would, and could be able to defend themselves on thier own agianst the Parthians with or without Rome
They would have invaded it themselves, big deal...
das
Regeneration In Process
Anyhow, the German victory in the East would make a nice NES. IMHO USA will still join in, only later, and possibly not against Japan at first. Possibly a more Anglo-French version of Operation Torch, and also slower. Probably no invasion of Italy, though that's not a given.
Basically, as the Allies have aerial superiority they should be able to bomb all of Europe into submission. This is probably combined with local rebellions, whilst Japan has more time to prepare and to crush China. As of 1946, Europe is in chaos and the Anglo-American attention is finally turned to Japan...
---
No comment about Iraq's and Ukraine's "puppetness"... though in both cases it, if we accept your opinion, only proves what I said.
The status quo rarely lasts - and when it does, it is hardly to the benefit of nations involved, because it invariably leads to stagnation. An arrangement of mutual benefit is nice and fine, (and honour is indeed a rare and little thing ) but eventually mutual benefit disappears as status quo changes.
The problem with a surviving Roman Empire, generally, is that it will stagnate and begin to lag behind; in fact, that was partially what happened in the real world. A situation not unlike that of China will develop, and change will be resisted and feared (I get the impression that it was in OTL). Luckily for Europe, Roman Empire was not eternal, and eventually competition between the different states developed, causing progress and the eventual European rise to pre-eminence. The best scenario ofcourse would have been Rome fragmenting by itself and failing to reunify; the ancient Greek achievements would not be lost, whilst the status quo would be broken and Europe might rise to pre-eminence earlier. Try to organize something like that if you want, Xen... The best way would probably be to kill off Diocletian and have the Empire fall apart into numerous separate "Latinic" (ala Hellenic) states.
---
Now that I have the current "Philaret Timeline" finished, I'm pondering what to do next...
a) the history of stazNES VI's "afterlife" like I promised to Panda?
b) the althist about Bismarck being killed by a penguin sniper in 1848?
c) the althist about a very alternate (much more nasty and Jacobin) American revolution?
or
d) the Dark Ages althist about North King (I'll explain later, basically its a rather alternate Viking civilization)?
Basically, as the Allies have aerial superiority they should be able to bomb all of Europe into submission. This is probably combined with local rebellions, whilst Japan has more time to prepare and to crush China. As of 1946, Europe is in chaos and the Anglo-American attention is finally turned to Japan...
---
No comment about Iraq's and Ukraine's "puppetness"... though in both cases it, if we accept your opinion, only proves what I said.
The status quo rarely lasts - and when it does, it is hardly to the benefit of nations involved, because it invariably leads to stagnation. An arrangement of mutual benefit is nice and fine, (and honour is indeed a rare and little thing
) but eventually mutual benefit disappears as status quo changes.The problem with a surviving Roman Empire, generally, is that it will stagnate and begin to lag behind; in fact, that was partially what happened in the real world. A situation not unlike that of China will develop, and change will be resisted and feared (I get the impression that it was in OTL). Luckily for Europe, Roman Empire was not eternal, and eventually competition between the different states developed, causing progress and the eventual European rise to pre-eminence. The best scenario ofcourse would have been Rome fragmenting by itself and failing to reunify; the ancient Greek achievements would not be lost, whilst the status quo would be broken and Europe might rise to pre-eminence earlier. Try to organize something like that if you want, Xen... The best way would probably be to kill off Diocletian and have the Empire fall apart into numerous separate "Latinic" (ala Hellenic) states.
---
Now that I have the current "Philaret Timeline" finished, I'm pondering what to do next...
a) the history of stazNES VI's "afterlife" like I promised to Panda?
b) the althist about Bismarck being killed by a penguin sniper in 1848?
c) the althist about a very alternate (much more nasty and Jacobin) American revolution?
or
d) the Dark Ages althist about North King (I'll explain later, basically its a rather alternate Viking civilization)?
Similar threads
- Poll
