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
I was thinking 'burning Rome is easy, surviving therafter is hard' good part there.
The divisioning of the empire works too as well as Nero moving to Greece...
but isn't it a bit far of a stretch to Hellenize the Empire? Unless it became a truly powerful base capable of dominating it's region would it be truly be beneficial to - hmmm, well if it's one third I guess it could work.

Do remember that it worked in OTL with the Byzantines, though rather later. Nero was a known Hellenist, and all the eastern provinces that mattered were Greek/Hellenized. With a capital in Egypt, Hellenization is a natural process that can only be sped up by Nero.

As for the Dutch, they did have problems with strategic position and with population. But their system worked just fine in the East Indies in OTL - Napoleon and the British set them back considerably.

---

Any more guesses? I doubt its that hard, really...
 
das said:
Do remember that it worked in OTL with the Byzantines, though rather later. Nero was a known Hellenist, and all the eastern provinces that mattered were Greek/Hellenized. With a capital in Egypt, Hellenization is a natural process that can only be sped up by Nero.
never occured to you that one of the reasons Nero wasnt embraced by the masses was because he was such a hellenist? Apperentlly not. Hellenism was a touchy subject in the Roman world; it was okay to imitate greek art, and it was alright to spread Greek literature; but these had only been accepted grudinglly, and over 2 centuries of tension over them; even in Neros day, and indeed, a biased the stretched right into th emiddle ages, the east was regarded as decadent corrupt, and dishonourable; one of the reason that Romans of the prinicpate era appreciated the He-man Romans who stood up for firmlly Roman traits (like Vespasian, and Augustus), and Hellenized emperors (such as Nero, and Tiberius) tend to get a bad wrap.

A Nero activlly making his empire hellenic would be kicked out faster then a turk at a greek nationalist convention.


As for the Dutch, they did have problems with strategic position and with population. But their system worked just fine in the East Indies in OTL - Napoleon and the British set them back considerably.

you'll pardon me if I take a Frenchmans opinion on the subject over that of a Russian; neighbors tend to have a better idea of exactley whats going currentlly, and in the past history fo those around them, and when an educated member of this forum (though the comment was made at a different one) says that Theydidnt try to conqoure the world, then I tend to agree with him; the Dutch didnt exactly go fourth and try to capture as much as you like to give them, they more or less snapped up whatr was blantantlly availible, and otherwised concentradted on making trade routes.
 
never occured to you that one of the reasons Nero wasnt embraced by the masses was because he was such a hellenist? Apperentlly not. Hellenism was a touchy subject in the Roman world; it was okay to imitate greek art, and it was alright to spread Greek literature; but these had only been accepted grudinglly, and over 2 centuries of tension over them; even in Neros day, and indeed, a biased the stretched right into th emiddle ages, the east was regarded as decadent corrupt, and dishonourable; one of the reason that Romans of the prinicpate era appreciated the He-man Romans who stood up for firmlly Roman traits (like Vespasian, and Augustus), and Hellenized emperors (such as Nero, and Tiberius) tend to get a bad wrap.

A Nero activlly making his empire hellenic would be kicked out faster then a turk at a greek nationalist convention.

You seem to miss the point, though. The Roman public opinion wouldn't matter in this case - the only matters that would matter would be those in Hellenized Egypt. Would they oppose an emperor who would try to hellenize the empire?
you'll pardon me if I take a Frenchmans opinion on the subject over that of a Russian; neighbors tend to have a better idea of exactley whats going currentlly, and in the past history fo those around them, and when an educated member of this forum (though the comment was made at a different one) says that Theydidnt try to conqoure the world, then I tend to agree with him; the Dutch didnt exactly go fourth and try to capture as much as you like to give them, they more or less snapped up whatr was blantantlly availible, and otherwised concentradted on making trade routes.

Did I ever said anything to the contrary?
 
das said:
You seem to miss the point, though. The Roman public opinion wouldn't matter in this case - the only matters that would matter would be those in Hellenized Egypt. Would they oppose an emperor who would try to hellenize the empire?
sure they would; Egypt was never exactley "hellenized"; the Ptolemaic rulers were, but for th emost "Hellenization" was restricted to to Alexandra, and goverment officials; life went on in the ususal egyptian style for the most part.

Did I ever said anything to the contrary?
every time you make a map with absurd dutch possesions you do ;) (which tends to be all of them)
 
Xen said:
sure they would; Egypt was never exactley "hellenized"; the Ptolemaic rulers were, but for th emost "Hellenization" was restricted to to Alexandra, and goverment officials; life went on in the ususal egyptian style for the most part.

As long as they played the balance of the civilization well, and satisfied the Egyptians, Jews, etc, etc, then there's no reason it shouldn't succeed.
 
sure they would; Egypt was never exactley "hellenized"; the Ptolemaic rulers were, but for th emost "Hellenization" was restricted to to Alexandra, and goverment officials; life went on in the ususal egyptian style for the most part.

Precisely. They didn't oppose a hellenistic government before, mostly because they didn't give a damn. Why start now?
every time you make a map with absurd dutch possesions you do (which tends to be all of them)

I must admit that I do like to create absurdly large Dutch empires. You, on the other hand, like to have Tartessos dominate Western Mediterrnean. We're even. ;)
 
das said:
Precisely. They didn't oppose a hellenistic government before, mostly because they didn't give a damn. Why start now?
Actually, in the later years of the Ptolemies, there were many riots and open violence against Ptolemy XII Auletes...which, for the most part, ended with Cleo (VII Philopator, I think). Still, no reason why it can't work.
 
das said:
Precisely. They didn't oppose a hellenistic government before, mostly because they didn't give a damn. Why start now?

yes they did and quite activlly; it was only by bribeing that the Ptolemaic dynasty was able to get the preisthoods to (nominally) stand aside them, making it about as minimal as coudl be expected (yet they were still serious, even then)

so your point "didnt give a damn" dosent work; it simply wasnt so; it was only under the Romans who didnt c;amp down, and didnt even bother tryign ot "make the egyptian greek" or any such nonsense that let Egypt becoem one of Romes most peaceful, and loyal provinces.

I must admit that I do like to create absurdly large Dutch empires. You, on the other hand, like to have Tartessos dominate Western Mediterrnean. We're even. ;)

when have a I dont that? whiel playing an NES? Hardly matters; you have wet dreams over dutch imperialism, I liek to make a good nation when i play in an NES; hardley the same subject, and cant be compared.
 
yes they did and quite activlly; it was only by bribeing that the Ptolemaic dynasty was able to get the preisthoods to (nominally) stand aside them, making it about as minimal as coudl be expected (yet they were still serious, even then)

so your point "didnt give a damn" dosent work; it simply wasnt so; it was only under the Romans who didnt c;amp down, and didnt even bother tryign ot "make the egyptian greek" or any such nonsense that let Egypt becoem one of Romes most peaceful, and loyal provinces.

You are yet to give a convincing argument as to why it can't work, though.

when have a I dont that? whiel playing an NES? Hardly matters; you have wet dreams over dutch imperialism, I liek to make a good nation when i play in an NES; hardley the same subject, and cant be compared.

Whatever, then. You like to save the Roman Empire in some form, in that case.
 
Okay, here is a DIFFERENT PoD, a different map. The year is still 1900, but that's a coincidence. This is one of the settings I MIGHT use one day. Or not.
 
Austria wins the Seven Weeks' War?...at Sadowa, maybe? Or perhaps the Prussians don't get needleguns.
 
Earlier PoD, the war is still a Prussian victory, in some senses even more decisive on the battlefield, rather worse off diplomatically.

The Austrians did have two revanches after that... Albeit they lost a large part of their empire during the second one, commonly known as "World War One" (1881-1886).
 
Yes, it is.

tencharjustincase
 
The PoD itself does not directly affect neither of them. Its eventual consequences, however...

Lets just say that the Second Empire is still quite alive in 1900.
 
How about the Revolutions of 1848? A fiercely nationalist Prussia goes to war with a dying Austria?
 
Ironically, I did put the PoD at 1848. Although it doesn't have to be there. And it had very little immediate effect.
 
933-1000.

Affalon:

Gradually, Nova Hibernia transformed into a kingdom from a monastic republic, albeit the influence of the early years remained, Nova Hibernians being generally very religious. Also, the Church remained, in name at least, very strong and on an equal standing with the State. Between fighting off Partickian raiders and praying, the Nova Hibernians also traded with the natives and expanded from their capital of Communa, mostly-peacefully. Settlements were established in OTL New Brunswick and Maine, and also on the St. Communus River (OTL St. Lawrence).

Patrickians also emerged as an united kingdom that united all of St. Patrick's Island and gradually took over Knudsland (OTL Labardor and eastern coast of Quebec). Wars with Nova Hibernia happened, but much more notably was the naval war with Snowland Vikings, resulting in the Patrickian conquest of Iceland.

And you know the stuff about technology, horses and diseases spreading, no need for me to recite that AGAIN.

Europe:

England faced many setbacks in this time, coming under Snowish and Geldish raids and losing the Battle at Lehavre, thus having to abandon its continental possessions to Frankia. All this resulted in a civil war, after which the king was relegated to the status of a puppet of the more powerful of the warlords, who kept everybody else down. Warlords quarreled, ofcourse, and England was for much of the period in a state of on-and-off civil war, which combined with Irish and Scottish rebellions (and defeat thereof at the hands of the English warlords) didn't make it a particularily pleasant place to live in. Various Vikings, meanwhile, captured the Orkneys, transforming it into a raider, pirate and merchant hub.

The Rhine by this time was solidified as the border between the Germans and the Slavs, i.e. between Frankia and Severoslavia. Apart from defeating the English, the Franks during this time warred unsuccesfully with Occitania and held back Severoslavian advance westwards, but generally wasted away many of their resources in these wars and the civil war of 954-961. Still, by 1000 they were quite recovering and preparing for another war with Occitania...

Occitania was culturally- and economically-prosperous during this time. The benevolent rule of Eudes II (r. 962-999) allowed a brief revival of the Carolingian Renaissance (no pun intended), as Toulouse became one of Europe's cultural centers. However, already then stagnation was in the air...

Spain pushed the Idrisids out of Granada, but an expedition into Morocco itself failed. Garcia I proved a capable ruler, developing a healthy economy and a comparatively-centralized state, albeit he did have to put down a major Basque-Catalan rebellion in 943. A great Spanish fleet fared well against Idrisids and other Muslims, conquering the Balearics, Corsica, Sardinia, Sicily and Malta. But true greatness only came with Carlos I (r. 951-984), who created the Third Holy Roman Empire through an alliance with the Pope against the Byzantines. The Byzantines were at the time trying to recover Italy, but were faced by a coalition of the Pope, Venice and several other HIK states (HIK itself effectively disintegrated in 925, with the death of Umbert III). The Byzantine army scored several victories on the land and the sea, but the Spanish intervention resulted in the Byzantine defeat at Ostia, followed up by the destruction of much of Emperor Leo VII's army. The Byzantines were dislodged from Southern Italy, which was annexed by Spain, and a special agreement created the Third HRE, with the Papacy and the northern Italian states being officially parts thereof. De facto, ofcourse, the Spanish authority there was, for the most part, nominal, albeit the Italian states WERE real allies of the Emperor. Having taken over Sicily and southern Italy, Spain also took over a significant percentage of the Mediterranean trade.

Geldish chieftains quarreled often, and only united (briefly) in 939 and 984 against konungs who, for some reason, thought themselves to be important. By 1000 AD, Geldland was even more of a legal fiction then previously. Also, during this time Catholic priests increasingly frequented this land, coming from England. But so far, they had few converts...

Severoslavians during this time built up, developing internally (building roads, developing riverine and maritime trade, building churches and so forth), albeit in 959-967 in particular they did try to expand westwards at the expense of the unstable Frankish kingdom. Wars with Prussia were mostly inconclusive, albeit Prussians gained a few borderlands lately.

Prussia was increasingly becoming a military powerhouse, with its heavy infantry arguably the best in the world. Aside from that, the Viking elite was partially assimilated by the Slavic-Baltic majority. The Oder became the state's western border, whilst the eastern one remained indecisive, with sporadic warfare against Baltland and the Russian kaganates... ofcourse, said kaganates disappeared after a few years into the period, and then eastern expansion got rather more difficult. More on that later.

Moravia was no longer Yenid by 1000 AD - a native dynasty came to power in 967, after a brief civil war. But that was a rather minor change, all things considered. Moravia, like most other nations, also underwent a rise of feudalism and hence became rather unstable. It did, however, defeat the Byzantines north from Danube's delta (in OTL Romania), securing the land for themselves.

The Byzantines suffered, under the rule of Leo VII (r. 949-972) a series of military disasters, facing defeat in Italy and Dacia. Still, what lands they held on to they managed to consolidate, and also expanded in the Middle East (see Middle East, what else?). Insert something about a great cultural flourishing here.

Baltland, still ruled by the Birger Dynasty, was also a powerful state, defeating the Prussians in 955 at Jelgava. The border with them was subsequently moved all the way south to the Neman River. Certain gains were made further east, but they were more then reversed by Mishael Barak.

Mishael Barak, as mentioned previously, was a Judaistic Ghuzz mercenary in Khazaria. It so happened that in 935 the Russian Kaganate of Krem (based around OTL Moscow) rebelled against the Khazars, declaring full independance and defeating the Khazar armies on the Moskva River. The kagan and several important begs (feudals) died in battle or during the retreat, and no small amount of instability followed. Other Russian Kaganates rebelled as well, and a mini-civil war begun between the various court factions. It was then that Mishael jumped into action, rallying a small but efficient army (mostly of his mercenaries and some others) and playing the other factions against each other. As he came to terms with Beg Tarkhan, Mishael managed to install his power over all of Khazaria. Then Tarkhan suddenly died, how convenient. Anyways, major reforms were undertaken. Judaism was strenghthened forcefully within Khazaria; absolute monarchy was imposed, covered with the traditional doctrine of Heavenly Mandate (yes, the Khazars did have that in OTL. Most Turkic peoples did.). Military reforms were enacted; the mercenaries (yes, the mercenaries - Mishael didn't want anybody to follow him in his path) were fully replaced with a regular army, thankfully the Khazars did have a tradition of a standing army for defensive purposes. Only THIS army was an offensive one.

Immediately, it was put to good use. A bunch of begs, with a pretender kagan and Byzantine assistance, have emerged in Crimea. Before they could do any real harm, though, they were crushed by Barak, who lived up to his last name well. Then, to the north. The Kagan of Ryazan has seen the error of his ways when the Balts invaded - he once more became a loyal vassal, and the Balts were defeated at Pronya. Other Russian kagans evidently forgot to submit, or thought they could win. Fools. Their forests were burned down, their cities (including Krem) destroyed, their lands were forcefully integrated into Khazaria.

Finally, Barak went southwards, to Caucasus. It was not much of a fight there - the Muslims in Dagestan submitted without a battle, whilst the Armenians were destroyed in spite of Byzantine assistance. However, in the fateful battle at Babert, where the Byzantines were defeated and their allies routed, Mishael was wounded by an arrow and eventually died. But his empire, the Barakid Kaganate, lived on under his son, Menahem I, who signed the Treaty of Dvin with the Byzantines, partitioning Armenia (shall we add that the Byzantines got only a tiny southwestern chunk thereof?).

From 947 (the date of Menahem's rise to power) onwards, Barakid Khazaria consolidated on its gains, and, as mentioned before, reversed many past Balt gains. Eastward expansion was moderately-pursued, and eventually a "great wall" was built on the eastern border (which is just to the west from Yaik (OTL Ural) River). Southern expansion, however, was stopped by the great Buwayhid Empire (see Middle East)...

Africa:

The Idrisids fared well during this time, consolidating their control of Barbary Coast, expanding southwards (mostly by the means of diplomacy, ofcourse) and pushing the Abbasids out of Tripolitania. Granada and several Mediterranean islands were lost, but regardless, the Idrisids also prospered economically and culturally, in part thanks to the exodus of many Iberian Muslims and Jews who had it good under Muslim rule.

Abbasid power was crumbling. A Fatimid rebellion in Egypt (and Cyreneica) created the Fatimid Sultanate, which however failed in most of its expansionistic plans. However, in 983 they succesfully invaded Makkura and took over it, in spite of several difficulties involving rebels.

Middle East:

The Byzantines expanded into Syria, retaking most of it (including Damascus). The Fatimids stopped them in Palestine, ofcourse, but this was only a temporary setback caused by the Byzantine military defeats elsewhere.

A local dynasty (lets call them Basharids) took over Hejjaz during the Abbasid disintegration. They were menaced in Arabia by the Qarmatians.

Buwayhids, a native Persian dynasty (although Muslim), not only took over Iran but also puppeted the Abbasid Caliph, accordingly took over Iraq (all of it, unlike OTL) and also Oman. For consistancy reasons, Dubai region was taken over as well. In the east, Buwayhid rule extended as far east as the Hindu Kush (no Ghaznavids in this world). Not only were the Buwayhids militarily strong, however - trade brought many profits, whilst Persian culture underwent a general renaissance.

Finally, in the east the Samanids ruled the Muslim (southern) Central Asia, including parts of Khorasan.
 
Back
Top Bottom