Alternate History NESes; Spout some ideas!

[das]

Russian internet is filled with unpublished althist literature. Okay, I'm exaggerating, but it exists, hidden from the eyes of ye westerners. There are some interesting ideas there... here's two of them:

1) "Life of Alexander (Part Two)". Basic premise: Alexander comes near death from malaria, but survives; becomes increasingly insane and paranoid, removing his best friends one by one (one of the few "survivors" being Nearchus) and surrounding himself with local mystics. He continues conquering, though not always succesfully: he subdues "Arabia", but is turned back in Africa after his vanguard is masacred by the Cush-ites, he also conquers Carthage and tries to impose his rule on Iberia (subduing some coastal regions, but mostly his authority there is nominal as he leaves for Italy) and finally subdues Italy, completely genociding off Romans (I suspect that "Plutarch" was exaggerating, but nonetheless...) for their defiance. His insanity also leads to a large waste of funds on the construction of implausible architectural projects - bridges, lighthouses and even a statue of himself that is supposed to stand with its feet on both sides of the Pillars of Hercules (shall we say that this one didn't get very far? ). His vastly-overstretched empire suffers from rebellions, but before it falls he managed to massacre two more peoples - Spartans and Judeans. Finally, however, "Ermolius of Thebes" (not sure if that's a historical character...) raises a Greek rebellion that routs Alexander's army; he himself died in the retreat, a hated and scorned tyrant, outside of Egypt that is where he was popular even beyond his death (there he created a monotheistic religion, with himself as God; that religion is called "Osirianism", and is supposed to be very influential in post-Alexandrine world). His empire falls apart completely, and chaos ensues... NES idea: well, fairly obvious. People are forming new empires on the ruins of the Alexandrine one, although the OTL Mauryan and Qin ones still exist.

2) "Lest There Be War". Basic premise: the Germans don't launch Barbarossa; instead, they begin a full-scale offensive in North Africa (OOC: possibly the PoD was pre-war and had something to do with a stronger Axis fleet...). WWII ends in late 1941, with the crumbling of the British Empire under the German-Soviet blows (Soviets occupy Iran, Germans depopulate the Hebrew parts of Palestine during heavy fighting, especially at Hebron). A Soviet-Japanese War results in a bloody stalemate, though the Japanese also manage to keep Northern Sakhalin which they captured during the war because of Khruschev. Likewise with a Pacific War, which came later then in OTL with a more prepared Japan; the Japanese received a German nuke (butterfly effect?) and bombed Los Angeles in retaliation for the American bombing of Hiroshima. The world settles down into an "armed peace", with the four superpowers (USA, Third Reich, USSR, Japanese Empire) partitioning the globe... Points of interest: Christianity declines (not completely; but outside of USA and the Free World it loses much influence, whilst within Free World it is polarized between a "Jewish-led" (excerpt from guess-which-country's-propaganda) baptist sect and a "Aryan" sect) under the pressure of German neo-paganism and Soviet atheism, "Gaullist" and "Sionist" terrorists are fighting Germany, Western Hemisphere is mostly allied to the USA, with German and Soviet enclaves of influence (Argentina and Cuba respectively), Africa is contested by all four sides (yes, Japan too... though to a very small extent, naturally), India is Balkanized and behaves accordingly (all four sides are fighting for influence here as well; in the northern part, Soviets dominate most of it, but are waging an Afghanistan/Vietnam-like war in most of those, with heavy casualties), Japanese and Soviet influence clashes in China (mostly Manchuria vs. Mongolia, but within China Proper as well), generally this is a fairly dystopian but interesting world. NES idea: a cold war NES (ala Gelion/Goober/Stormbringer), with four established powers dominating the rest (although there are also terrorists, rebels, and "neutral" 5th World states, and ofcourse puppets and semi-puppets).

I know that some of you will complain about the plausibility of those scenarios. But still - sounds interesting, no?

 

[Dachs]

Interesting, I will admit.

Alexander never committed genocide during his original campaign except for two occasions: the destruction of Persepolis, and that was because of Ptolemy's mistress, Thais; and the burning of Thebes, and that was for revolting. With Alexander still off conquering, and only his regent on the throne, Spartans, who never actually fought Philip or his son, might try to rebel and "free the Greek people" a la the Peloponnesian War. That might have been sufficient reason to go after them, but Alex probably would have beaten up the revolt and burnt Sparta, but not committed genocide. He probably would have encouraged a Spartan diaspora instead, across Messenia and the rest of the Peloponnesus. A more likely scenario is one where eventually, Alex begins to lose control of the peripheries of his empire, but still maintains tactical dominance...More great marches of conquest are likely, and, like India, they'd probably be stopped by his own troops rather than a loss on the battlefield. No general is invincible, but he sure as hell came close.

 

[das]

Do remember that poor Alexander here nearly died, and whilst near death heard his generals quarreling, thinking that he is dead... Its described by "Plutarch" (who "wrote" it) rather nicely. Anyway, after that he became rather more nasty, executed one of his generals, then lost in Africa (he didn't actually engage the enemies himself; he was delayed by storms, I think, whilst his vanguard was mostly-massacred, and his troops were demoralized in spite of a minor victory, and indeed persuaded him to leave). Meanwhile, rebellions in the peripheries were put down, eventually he attacked Carthage and defeated it in a close-ran battle, then invaded Iberia... There he had many problems subjugating the tribes who waged a relentless guerrila war, so after a while he declared the campaign over and conquered Italy. He wanted to invade Gaul, but his soldiers restrained him again. Then he went to Greece where his mother was ill, she died, the Spartans refused to send their condolences, and Alexander got... upset. Hence the destruction of Sparta. I too believe that there is a Spartan diaspora... I should re-read it, but I think that some of the Spartan refugees were amongst Ermolius' army.

 

[alex994]

Wasn't Alexander's dream to "march to the ends of the earth?" Then surely he would go and try and conquer Qin China...

 

[North King]

Wasn't Alexander's dream to "march to the ends of the earth?" Then surely he would go and try and conquer Qin China...

His immediate plans before he was stopped by malaria were to conquer Carthage or Arabia, IIRC. However, he would have gone on to try to conquer India and China, but I daresay the energetic, new Mauryan Empire under the command of Chandragupta, a military and political genius, would have been a far greater foe than most he would have faced before that... It is my suspicion that an Alexander who survived malaria would have died on the Ganges.

 

[das]

Well, here he got carried away with western expansion, whilst his eastern provinces were constantly rebelling. So, after conquering Arabia and Carthage, stumbling in Iberia and conquering Italy, he returned home to try and consolidate his empire and especially to spread his religion ("Osirianism"). It is believed by most historians that, after the defeats in Nubia and Iberia, he rather lost the will to conquer; either that or he didn't find the time.

 

[Xen]

rather realitis, on accounts fo Alexander; the east in constant rebellion; genocides and massacres? a new found religion?

save the imagination to somthing where it can be applied; Alexander did soem great things, but he was hardly an idiot (indeed, he was amoung the first pupils of aristotle; and thus the same manner of learning and thinking- so fimrlyl settled in the concept of "logos" which we all have grown up with)

1)the east loved alexander- as long as he lived, thier woudl be no rebellion
2)he not need found a new religion; the greeks woudl never accept him as a god, and never did over his own lifetime, and he never seemed tolose any sleep over the fact; the east already thought of thier kings as Gods, and that seemed to satisfy even Alexanders gradn ego
3)Alexander never commited genocide; i fail to see why he would do so on Romans if he hadnt to the traditonal enemies fo greece, the persians- the closest he came was not spreaing greek mercenaries who worked for the persians, and (while drunk) ordeing the city of Persepolis burned- whats far more likelly is that (and every one seems to forget this) is that alexander woudl incresinglly rely on client states, such as he set up gallacia and affirmed one out of pannonia and the Corinthiqan leagues that his father created to rule territories such as anything north or west of magna gracia; howeve,r what you guys also dont take into acount is that Alexander isnt very likelly to campaign in italy, because its greek territories, managed at that point, by Syracuse, creating a tuchy political situation; with Arabia, persia, Egypt Carthage you have reasons for conquest- trade routes and traditional rivalries with greeks either military/politically (Persia), or economically (the levant, carthage, and egypt)
4)after further conquests in arabia and carthage, his actual manpower base is nearlyl exausted; this is only the generation following the epic peloponesian wars; which, dont forget, macedonia took sides, and was a part of; the man power of greece was already worn shy; epic attempts at world conquest would stretch his man power to limit in what had conqoured (he already, by tthe Indus, had to rely on substanial parts of his forces being composed of persians; the mor epersians in the army, the more resentment he got from his home base in greece and macedonia; to continue this was suicide, and Alexander knew it; hence his choice to turn back.)

 

[Insane_Panda]

I know that some of you will complain about the plausibility of those scenarios. But still - sounds interesting, no?

Indeed, both sound very interesting.

 

[North King]

1)the east loved alexander- as long as he lived, thier woudl be no rebellion

Anything could be a catalyst. Anything.

2)he not need found a new religion; the greeks woudl never accept him as a god, and never did over his own lifetime, and he never seemed tolose any sleep over the fact; the east already thought of thier kings as Gods, and that seemed to satisfy even Alexanders gradn ego

His followers in Egypt would easily found a new religion. He regarded himself as a god, most likely.

3)Alexander never commited genocide; i fail to see why he would do so on Romans if he hadnt to the traditonal enemies fo greece, the persians- the closest he came was not spreaing greek mercenaries who worked for the persians, and (while drunk) ordeing the city of Persepolis burned- whats far more likelly is that (and every one seems to forget this) is that alexander woudl incresinglly rely on client states, such as he set up gallacia and affirmed one out of pannonia and the Corinthiqan leagues that his father created to rule territories such as anything north or west of magna gracia; howeve,r what you guys also dont take into acount is that Alexander isnt very likelly to campaign in italy, because its greek territories, managed at that point, by Syracuse, creating a tuchy political situation; with Arabia, persia, Egypt Carthage you have reasons for conquest- trade routes and traditional rivalries with greeks either military/politically (Persia), or economically (the levant, carthage, and egypt)

Xen, you've said yourself that Italia was one of the most fertile and richest lands in the Med. I'd say that in and of itself is reason for conquest; Alex loved conquering in any case anyway.

4)after further conquests in arabia and carthage, his actual manpower base is nearlyl exausted; this is only the generation following the epic peloponesian wars; which, dont forget, macedonia took sides, and was a part of; the man power of greece was already worn shy; epic attempts at world conquest would stretch his man power to limit in what had conqoured (he already, by tthe Indus, had to rely on substanial parts of his forces being composed of persians; the mor epersians in the army, the more resentment he got from his home base in greece and macedonia; to continue this was suicide, and Alexander knew it; hence his choice to turn back.)

Yeah, I agree with you there. He would be screwed.

 

[Symphony D.]

Likewise with a Pacific War, which came later then in OTL with a more prepared Japan; the Japanese received a German nuke (butterfly effect?) and bombed Los Angeles in retaliation for the American bombing of Hiroshima.

Neither Japan nor Germany really had the Uranium resources or production facilities to produce a bomb (consider: Trinity consumed 10% of all American power production and a minimum of two facilities only slightly smaller than the Pentagon). Admittedly, if England had fallen in 1941, it might be on the outside of possibility.

Also, regarding Cuba being a Soviet "outpost" - it only happens if Fidel Castro rises and is actively opposed by the United States (only once he was scorned did he really turn toward the USSR - same thing as Ho Chi Min really [who, BTW, OTL, offered for Vietnam to be a colony of the USA to Truman in 1947]). I don't really see how the losses of Iran or Palestine hurt the United Kingdom greatly or cause it to "crumble" at all - only Suez, Gibraltar, and the oil fields could really do that. Unless it's assumed the U-Boat campaign was more effective than OTL.

Frankly the scenario just sounds terribly implausible. I just don't see it at all. I only see WWII being won by the Germans if 1.) they weren't led by Adolph Hitler, 2.) if the war had started later, or 3.) if Operation Sealion (UK) had progressed to fruition before Operation Barbarossa. This one posits that, but then assumes the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany live in peace - which seems totally unrealistic. One would have turned on the other sooner or later, likely sooner.

If you're going to go for "balance of powers" then you may as well go for a 1984 scenario or something.

 

[Dachs]

1)the east loved alexander- as long as he lived, thier woudl be no rebellion

According to the real Plutarch's Lives, a riot in Babylon forced Alexander to enter the city against the advice of his soothsayers, who said that he would die there. If this happened with Alexander fresh from conquest, what would happen with possible disappointment later?

2)he not need found a new religion; the greeks woudl never accept him as a god, and never did over his own lifetime, and he never seemed tolose any sleep over the fact; the east already thought of thier kings as Gods, and that seemed to satisfy even Alexanders gradn ego

Agree somewhat, maybe Macedonians might be persuaded to see his way, but this viewing as god might be a way to incite those Spartan rebellions that das' "Plutarch" was talking about.

3)Alexander never commited genocide; i fail to see why he would do so on Romans if he hadnt to the traditonal enemies fo greece, the persians- the closest he came was not spreaing greek mercenaries who worked for the persians, and (while drunk) ordeing the city of Persepolis burned- whats far more likelly is that (and every one seems to forget this) is that alexander woudl incresinglly rely on client states, such as he set up gallacia and affirmed one out of pannonia and the Corinthiqan leagues that his father created to rule territories such as anything north or west of magna gracia; howeve,r what you guys also dont take into acount is that Alexander isnt very likelly to campaign in italy, because its greek territories, managed at that point, by Syracuse, creating a tuchy political situation; with Arabia, persia, Egypt Carthage you have reasons for conquest- trade routes and traditional rivalries with greeks either military/politically (Persia), or economically (the levant, carthage, and egypt)

The Corinthian league was really just a way to gain troops from the other Greek city-states, and was just a sham. Demosthenes showed us that with his little revolt after Alex left. About campaigns in Italia: agree. Despite its excellent land, and its fragmentation into small states (which Rome could then better conquer in OTL), the Greeks didn't really care about many things north of Campania. After that, I don't think much was known about those lands, but I'm not sure. Pyrrhus had little knowledge going in fifty years after Alex, so there is nothing to suggest that Macedonians would have known anything earlier.

4)after further conquests in arabia and carthage, his actual manpower base is nearlyl exausted; this is only the generation following the epic peloponesian wars; which, dont forget, macedonia took sides, and was a part of; the man power of greece was already worn shy; epic attempts at world conquest would stretch his man power to limit in what had conqoured (he already, by tthe Indus, had to rely on substanial parts of his forces being composed of persians; the mor epersians in the army, the more resentment he got from his home base in greece and macedonia; to continue this was suicide, and Alexander knew it; hence his choice to turn back.)

Two generations after the Peloponnesian wars. Greece was still pretty beat up from the Corinthian wars, and the wars of Theban supremacy under Epaminondas, whose oblique formation the Macedonians aped to their advantage at Chaeronaea (Plutarch's birthplace...), though. However, the Greeks still put together a 10,000-man expeditionary force for Cyrus the Younger only three years after the fall of Athens, and the Macedonian/Corinthian League troops crossing the Hellespont (seventy years after the fall of Athens) were about 30-50,000 men, depending on whom you read (Arrian, for example, like bigger numbers). Then, the Greeks fought the wars of the Diadochi, which used up even more Hellenic manpower, especially at Ipsus. Greece could still muster a lot of men, and could do more with fewer. That's not to say that he wouldn't have run out of men, he'd just do it far slower.

 

[Cuivienen]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yucatan

Read the section about the 1840s... Interesting stuff. Anyone want to speculate on what might have happened had the US decided to annex the Yucatan and fight the Mayan rebels? If any president would have done it, it would have been Polk.

 

[das]

Xen, you did read the part about being bitterly disillusioned and near death from malaria? This sort of stuff tends to make people rather less "nice".

Symphony, well, I didn't write it, but from what I understand, the Germans in this world DID capture Suez (offensives in Egypt and Palestine were mostly from that, I suspect). Not sure about details, but evidently the Soviets then agreed to follow Hitler's suggestion to "take over India" (I admit that its unlikely, so possibly its assumed that Stalin in this world reached a more conclusive agreement with Hitler in 1939; frankly I too suspect that for this, polar bear mediation is nearly-irreplaceable, but if we assume that to be the original PoD). British Empire was overstretched and thus collapsed.

Again, not sure about details, and don't know where I could contact the author. I'll try to look for details later on.

Same with Cuba. Maybe there still is a revolution AND the Germans mishandle foreign policy very badly?

The idea here is that Germany actually ALLIES with USSR to a certain degree. Technically, as of 1996 the two are still on very good terms, with large German cultural influence. Something about cooperation against USA (which still is economically-superior, ofcourse) as well.

 

[Xen]

Anything could be a catalyst. Anything.

nothing would be a catalyst. nothing.
to hope for one is wishful thinking- everyone non persian loved him because "liberated" them from the persians- amd th e persians now worshipped him as a more mighty-god king; nope, life was a peach in the east, as it generally is when the actual conqeror of a pregion still rules over it for Alexander, and it would have stayed that way as long as thier was rumour he was still alive.

His followers in Egypt would easily found a new religion. He regarded himself as a god, most likely.

nope. thier is no need for a new religion when the old one suits all your needs -god hood included- just fine. the most that would happen is that ALex tries to push eastern religions on the greeks, but even that is unlikelly

Xen, you've said yourself that Italia was one of the most fertile and richest lands in the Med. I'd say that in and of itself is reason for conquest; Alex loved conquering in any case anyway.

The region of Italy that is most immedaitely rich and fertile is, ironically, souther italy, where the greeks made colonies; just a little bit north, and you hit the Appenine mountains, and trouble for any phalanx based army; as Pyrrhus and the Etruscans can attest

 

[North King]

nothing would be a catalyst. nothing.
to hope for one is wishful thinking- everyone non persian loved him because "liberated" them from the persians- amd th e persians now worshipped him as a more mighty-god king; nope, life was a peach in the east, as it generally is when the actual conqeror of a pregion still rules over it for Alexander, and it would have stayed that way as long as thier was rumour he was still alive.

Nonsense, while he was quite popular, you have to admit this was at the time of his string of endless victories.

nope. thier is no need for a new religion when the old one suits all your needs -god hood included- just fine. the most that would happen is that ALex tries to push eastern religions on the greeks, but even that is unlikelly

I believe it wouldn't be that unusual to have his *followers* found a religion.

The region of Italy that is most immedaitely rich and fertile is, ironically, souther italy, where the greeks made colonies; just a little bit north, and you hit the Appenine mountains, and trouble for any phalanx based army; as Pyrrhus and the Etruscans can attest

And yet, Alex *still* wanted to conquer unto the ends of the Earth, fertile land or no. And Early Roman armies wouldn't have stood a chance against the might of Macedon, not at that stage, not when the Greeks still had their combined arms in full force.

 

[Xen]

Xen, you did read the part about being bitterly disillusioned and near death from malaria? This sort of stuff tends to make people rather less "nice".

nice or not nice it dosent really matter- Alexander wasnt hitler or Stalin, and the minute his own side saw a reason to get rid of him, they woudl have- and numerous assination attempts, soem by his own close comrades rather stress the point; perhaps its a strange concept for you, but not every one (and guess what, this just happens to include the ancient greeks) enjoyed bouts of genocidal destruction against everyone who stood agianst them-regions where commerce/sustinence prooved to be the main motivation for settlement creation rather then political control tend to not employ genocide until relitivlly modern eras- such as the WW's

 

[Dachs]

I daresay the energetic, new Mauryan Empire under the command of Chandragupta, a military and political genius, would have been a far greater foe than most he would have faced before that...

If Chandragupta failed to gain a decisive advantage over Seleucus Nicator, one of Alex's generals (and one of those who failed to grasp the secret of his success, his heavy cavalry), in their slugging matches, then what chance would he have over Alex?

 

[Xen]

Nonsense, while he was quite popular, you have to admit this was at the time of his string of endless victories.

if anything, actual victories are the last thing you needed to becoem king of Persia- Darius and Xerxes seemed to have hung on just fine after they had thier asses handed to them by a few puny tribes at the end of the world (those being the greeks ) Military victories help you estbalish your name- but tiwhat you do afterward that ensures you keep it, and Alexander didnt have to do anything beyond kick the persians arse to ensure the people of the persian empire would love him.

I believe it wouldn't be that unusual to have his *followers* found a religion.

trouble is, thier is no such thing- he had no "followers" any one who worshipped him was either lying to him in his face, or was doing it because thier native religion dictated that thier ruler be worshipped as a god- its very much a case of "nothing personal, we're just supposed to" sort of thing. anyone could have been king, and they still would have been worshiped- it was an article of faith that you did such.

And yet, Alex *still* wanted to conquer unto the ends of the Earth, fertile land or no. And Early Roman armies wouldn't have stood a chance against the might of Macedon, not at that stage, not when the Greeks still had their combined arms in full force.

1)I aint said a word about rome- only that Phalanx's sook in italy, andf I dare say your wrong; Rome had control of most of italy by tyhis point, and a great deal of its resources to boot- it was no small city state at this point NK; Rome rose in conjuction with the city states of greece.
2)agian, when would he get around to italy, a land who greek population was already under control of a nation that had payed him Tribute (Syracuse) and so affirmed its friendlly intent, and seemed cpable of quelling any native brigots- when the rest of the world; lucatrive arab spice and trade, and the ever present enemy of all Greek merchants, the carthagians, loomed on the horizon as being profitable conquests, what actually makes you think he would ever get around to conqeroring italy NK? because beyond your wants for a good way tocrush Rome, the fact of the matter is native italy wasnt very attractive to the greeks, they had what they wanted in the south- and if Alexander never felt the need to push his borders up to the danube, then thie ris really littel reason to belive he woudl do so in another area of the world veiwed by the greeks to be ****e.

 

[North King]

If Chandragupta failed to gain a decisive advantage over Seleucus Nicator, one of Alex's generals (and one of those who failed to grasp the secret of his success, his heavy cavalry), in their slugging matches, then what chance would he have over Alex?

From wikipedia, since I'm too lazy to go in depth:

His attempt to restore Macedonian rule beyond the Indus, where Chandragupta Maurya had established himself, was not successful. Seleucus entered the Punjab, but after humiliating defeats in 302 BC, was forced to conclude a peace with Chandragupta, by which he ceded large districts of what is now Afghanistan, and his daughter Helen as a "hostage-concubine", to Chandragupta.

 

[North King]

if anything, actual victories are the last thing you needed to becoem king of Persia- Darius and Xerxes seemed to have hung on just fine after they had thier asses handed to them by a few puny tribes at the end of the world (those being the greeks ) Military victories help you estbalish your name- but tiwhat you do afterward that ensures you keep it, and Alexander didnt have to do anything beyond kick the persians arse to ensure the people of the persian empire would love him.

The Greeks were on the frontier of the world. No one *cared* about them, and Darius didn't actually send a major invasion force anyway. As For Xerxes, well, he wasn't the most popular Persian king of all time.

trouble is, thier is no such thing- he had no "followers" any one who worshipped him was either lying to him in his face, or was doing it because thier native religion dictated that thier ruler be worshipped as a god- its very much a case of "nothing personal, we're just supposed to" sort of thing. anyone could have been king, and they still would have been worshiped- it was an article of faith that you did such.

I would sincerely doubt that.

1)I aint said a word about rome- only that Phalanx's sook in italy, andf I dare say your wrong; Rome had control of most of italy by tyhis point, and a great deal of its resources to boot- it was no small city state at this point NK; Rome rose in conjuction with the city states of greece.

Yes, it did. But against Macedon? Gimme a break Xen, it's not the inflexible crappy armies of the Successors, it's the army of Philip, only a few hundred miles from home (as opposed to their thousand miles ventures to India which would have ended in disaster from supply lines alone). Rome would have been crushed.

2)agian, when would he get around to italy, a land who greek population was already under control of a nation that had payed him Tribute (Syracuse) and so affirmed its friendlly intent, and seemed cpable of quelling any native brigots- when the rest of the world; lucatrive arab spice and trade, and the ever present enemy of all Greek merchants, the carthagians, loomed on the horizon as being profitable conquests, what actually makes you think he would ever get around to conqeroring italy NK? because beyond your wants for a good way tocrush Rome, the fact of the matter is native italy wasnt very attractive to the greeks, they had what they wanted in the south- and if Alexander never felt the need to push his borders up to the danube, then thie ris really littel reason to belive he woudl do so in another area of the world veiwed by the greeks to be ****e.

No, it wasn't valuable... But he did have this penchant for just conquering everything in sight, like when he was in Central Asia. Steppes might discourage him. But the northern Italian plain? I don't think so.