Alternate History NESes; Spout some ideas!

[das]

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

Which is why he's getting rid of them. Which is why he already begun killing them off before the disease.

As for genocide... Some peoples did. I don't see why can't Alexander, in rage, order to destroy a city, salt its grounds and kill off all the people he could get his hands on (that one wasn't always carried out to a letter, ofcourse).

Sounds fairly familiar, actually...

 

[Xen]

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.

frontir of the world you say? pah- that always been a cop-out story; Greeks had been playing an important role in trade commerce and politics since they had sprung out of thier darkages in the near easr, particurlay in anatolia (obviouslly), Egypt, and the Levant; the latter two areas as merchant men; indeed, by the tiem fo the persian conquest greeks (and surprsinglly, not the Phoencians0 had becoem the primary middle men for egypt, and even had a colony established in the delta to service thier port needs.- the greeks were big buisness in the near east, wheather one wants ot admit it or not; and yet the defeats by the hands of the important; ye tiny Greeks didnt do anything to upset the balence of power? Perhaps its just because military victory wasnt as important as having the right familly in the persian empire; and to that end, to openlly wage a war agianst the current emperor 9and his familly) to put your self on the throne was to proove that you had the divine honour- the divine right- to be king

I would sincerely doubt that.

then prove it- i can clearlyl show you that king worsip was along estbalished pracitce in the near east; in fact, i dont really need to; every one knows the legacy of the Pharaos at least, and it was no different in other middle easter societies- you however, will need to proove that Alexander had ANY specific followers of himself as a god in his own right without being a part of those relgions that honoured thier kings as gods anyway

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.

Prryhus is considered to be the gretest general between Alexander himself and hannibal; dont knock him he really was a great man; the only reason he didnt win was because of the well known fact that Phalanxs cant manuver on broken ground, and the macedonian phalanx actually makes it ten times worse then the reguler greek phalanx (but by contrast IS invincible from frontal assult)

regardless, it dosent matter- his army would still be exhaused from years of fighting and having to fight- so close to home(!) is NOT going to make them happy whrn they can be with wives and children they havent seen in years, and him retunring is actually far mor elikelly to make mor eplots agianst his life; as for years the court has been able to do more or less what it wants when it wants in his absence; whith his retun he will bring strange ideas; orign ideas barbarian ideas and try to impose them on a macedon that only so recentlly turned itself fully greek (in thier own eyes, at least) it isnt likelyl to go down well in a society where no one, even the king had a totally solid grasp of power at any time.

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.

you forget; to get to eh northenr italian plain, you have to go through the central italian highlands, and thats somthgint he greeks never wanted to do; even pyrrhus only did it to protect the greek city states of the south from by then real forign agression from Rome.

and more over his "this penchant for just conquering everything in sight" is a falsehood; he conqored what he conqored because Persia had owned it, or because he was chasing the former persian emperor, not because he saw anyvalue in the land itself, or conqeroring for conqrorings sake; he had a plan, and idea, and he looked set to stick to crating a empire strethincg from one of the sea to the other (over land), and not waste his time, unless he had to for political reasons or to secure his current holdings in the north

 

[Xen]

Which is why he's getting rid of them. Which is why he already begun killing them off before the disease.

proove this

As for genocide... Some peoples did. I don't see why can't Alexander, in rage, order to destroy a city, salt its grounds and kill off all the people he could get his hands on (that one wasn't always carried out to a letter, ofcourse).

1)once agian no evidence beyond your west hate to give any indication Alexander woudl step foot in italy when more prestigous, profitibal, an dimportant targets ot get the greeks firmlyl back on hsi side layed in wait in the forme of carthage in the west, and arabia in the south
2)tell me, just how often do people go insane becaus eof malaria? I'm curious
3)lets say he dose go insane- lets say he dose kill his nobles- lets say he dose indeed wish to to conqore lands of no value to him whatso ever for any reason- he aint gonna do it, because everyone in his amry is going to hate him for dragging them around the world (they already did by the indus, and had etered open rebellion from him to get him to turn home) in bth directions only to fiurther his glory- perhaps you forget,r he only had what support he had for conqroring persia because it was a "crusade to avenge Greek honor"- no such justifaction could be used on any other conquests, herr Das, and your great genocidal mancial ends up dead with a knife in his throat from soem pissed of infantry man who has had enough of alexanders "world tour"

Sounds fairly familiar, actually...

hardly-Rome bruned the city, and cursed the crounds 9and sowed salt in a singuler furrow to represent it) however, at the end of the seige when the the carthian population had feld to its citadel Rome said anyone who wishes to leave in peace could, and was allowed to do - and they did- those whor emaied where the die hards, and died they did.

 

[das]

Xen, you fail to see that we're talking about an aging, distressed, utterly insane Alexander. NOT about the young, promising, etc, etc one.

And btw, in OTL he did begin to show signs of mental illness.

 

[Xen]

so did napoleon- but he didnt resort to genocide

 

[alex994]

But Napoleon was locked away first at Elba, then later at St. Helens, not the ruler of an Empire as Alexander was in this alt-history timeline.

Now i'll stay inconspicious again *vanishes*

 

[Dachs]

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.

That treaty actually gained him war elephants, which he used at Ipsus to his advantage (Seleucus). There were no major battles, according to Dupuy and Dupuy in the Encyclopedia of Military History, Second Revised Edition, but Seleucus wanted to guard his rear and signed a peace, and thus gained a way to easily fight Ptolemy, Demetrius, Antigonus, and the rest of the Diadochi, plus Indian war elephants, which were better than African ones due to their practice at use in war, and thus gave away a little and got Anatolia and Syria, which his successors promptly lost to the Attalids (Anatolia anyway) and other small kingdoms.

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.

Actually, the Persians had long wanted to avenge the destruction of Sardis by the Athenians, and Darius was planning on a larger expedition when he inconveniently died three years before, for he'd massed some troops already, and was gathering Phoenician and Egyptian vessels for a victory on the Aegean (which, as we all know from Artemisium and Salamis, and then Mycale, never came). Greece wasn't even as far as the Persians planned, because Darius went north initially, across the Danube, and Miltiades of Marathon fame burned his bridges (he was originally a prince of Chalcidice, and brought his peninsula into the Athenian orbit).

 

[North King]

That treaty actually gained him war elephants, which he used at Ipsus to his advantage (Seleucus). There were no major battles, according to Dupuy and Dupuy in the Encyclopedia of Military History, Second Revised Edition, but Seleucus wanted to guard his rear and signed a peace, and thus gained a way to easily fight Ptolemy, Demetrius, Antigonus, and the rest of the Diadochi, plus Indian war elephants, which were better than African ones due to their practice at use in war, and thus gave away a little and got Anatolia and Syria, which his successors promptly lost to the Attalids (Anatolia anyway) and other small kingdoms.

Yes, it gained him war elephants. But you're under the impression that that's a major concession. For an Indian king? More to the point, an Indian king of one of the greatest empires on the planet? It was a pittance, and in return, Chandragupta extended his frontiers further than most any Indian kings before him, secured his empire, and won yet another in a long string of victories.

Actually, the Persians had long wanted to avenge the destruction of Sardis by the Athenians, and Darius was planning on a larger expedition when he inconveniently died three years before, for he'd massed some troops already, and was gathering Phoenician and Egyptian vessels for a victory on the Aegean (which, as we all know from Artemisium and Salamis, and then Mycale, never came). Greece wasn't even as far as the Persians planned, because Darius went north initially, across the Danube, and Miltiades of Marathon fame burned his bridges (he was originally a prince of Chalcidice, and brought his peninsula into the Athenian orbit).

Yes, he planned it. But he never carried it out, and was never truly defeated in full force.

 

[Dachs]

Yes, it gained him war elephants. But you're under the impression that that's a major concession. For an Indian king? More to the point, an Indian king of one of the greatest empires on the planet? It was a pittance, and in return, Chandragupta extended his frontiers further than most any Indian kings before him, secured his empire, and won yet another in a long string of victories.

The whole point that I was trying to make was that Seleucus had other enemies in his fellow successors, and therefore couldn't go for a longer war. Alexander, with none of these Diadochi, would not have had that problem.

Yes, he planned it. But he never carried it out, and was never truly defeated in full force.

And? Who says that he would have done things differently from Xerxes, who inherited his plan? Maybe he wouldn't have been as overconfident as his successor, and not expected total victory at Salamis and therefore deprived his fleet of the Egyptian squadron, but in all likelihood, the Greeks would defeat their enemies similarly: better seamanship, better marines, and better leadership. Plus, it was a great trap. Themistocles, the world's preeminent political and naval mind, versus the Persian Great King, the loser of Marathon? The victories scored over the Persians were more of a mark of a better military system, not one of better generalship per se, because both sides screwed up at Plataea. In all likelihood, Darius would have gone down again to the Greeks.

 

[North King]

The whole point that I was trying to make was that Seleucus had other enemies in his fellow successors, and therefore couldn't go for a longer war. Alexander, with none of these Diadochi, would not have had that problem.

And would simply have marched on to even more defeats. The idea that he could have conquered a rich, energetic state with his army over thousands of miles of supply lines, which presented a far greater challenge than Persia ever would have, even under a normal commander, and Chadragupta was anything but normal... Is laughable, at best.

And? Who says that he would have done things differently from Xerxes, who inherited his plan? Maybe he wouldn't have been as overconfident as his successor, and not expected total victory at Salamis and therefore deprived his fleet of the Egyptian squadron, but in all likelihood, the Greeks would defeat their enemies similarly: better seamanship, better marines, and better leadership. Plus, it was a great trap. Themistocles, the world's preeminent political and naval mind, versus the Persian Great King, the loser of Marathon? The victories scored over the Persians were more of a mark of a better military system, not one of better generalship per se, because both sides screwed up at Plataea. In all likelihood, Darius would have gone down again to the Greeks.

The Greeks didn't have better seamanship, or better marines. The Phoenecians outclassed them. Leadership? I'll give you that.

 

[North King]

On, a much different note:




The year was early 1493.

Lisboa was never quite calm and quiet–those went against the fact of it being a massive port for all of Portugal. But it was relatively peaceful at this time, around midnight, when few ships were sailing in and out of the harbor, and few people plied the streets.

Another ship joined the innumerable ranks of the ones that entered it every day, shortly after midnight. Ghostly, with rigging torn, sails nearly destroyed, half the hull gone, it was a wonder the skeletal wreck was afloat at all. It sluggishly made its way towards a pier, and almost drunkenly crashed into it, making a great clatter heard through much of the port city.

Alarmed sentries and merchants came running, even at this hour, to see what demonic force had overcome this ship.

It took them ten minutes to make contact, with repeated hails, and eventually some of them boarded the ship, looking for a survivor. Most of the crew of the ship lay dead or dying, with terrible sores all over their faces, or with a pool of blood flowing slowly from their mouth, or their flesh simply rotting away. Only one man found was still in a condition to talk, the rest had apparently had their last straw when the ship crashed into the pier; he was the only one left conscious.

They pushed back a grizzled mane of once auburn hair long ago turned white, to reveal the face of a Genovese navigator who had been in the court of Castile all those years ago. His breath was drawn in rattling gasps, and his eyes were crossed from fever, with a trickle of bloody vomit dripping from his chin.

“Tell the Queen of Castile...” he said in a hoarse voice. “Tell her... Tell her.”

“Tell her what?” one of the braver merchants inquired.

“Tell her... That there is...” he coughed a few times, and straightened. An unearthly fury seemed to go into his voice, and the man steeled himself for his last words.

“There is a continent across the sea. There are mighty empires with gold and riches abounding... But they are not Cathay, not Cipangu. They are... Caribbaea... and Mexico... and others... But God has cursed those that go to their lands.” He gestured feebly at his dying crew.

“We did our best to make it back, but the plagues were too numerous. God has cursed us, and will curse any who dare enter the land again. Yes, I have found a new land...

“But it is the land of the devil.”

 

[das]

proove this

He did kill one of his most trusted bodyguards, in OTL.

1)once agian no evidence beyond your west hate to give any indication Alexander woudl step foot in italy when more prestigous, profitibal, an dimportant targets ot get the greeks firmlyl back on hsi side layed in wait in the forme of carthage in the west, and arabia in the south

Did you even read my summary of the original text? HE DID TAKE ALL THAT.

And you yourself convinced me before that Italy IS important. There are Greeks there, btw.

2)tell me, just how often do people go insane becaus eof malaria? I'm curious

Not as much from malaria as much from stress.

3)lets say he dose go insane- lets say he dose kill his nobles- lets say he dose indeed wish to to conqore lands of no value to him whatso ever for any reason- he aint gonna do it, because everyone in his amry is going to hate him for dragging them around the world (they already did by the indus, and had etered open rebellion from him to get him to turn home) in bth directions only to fiurther his glory- perhaps you forget,r he only had what support he had for conqroring persia because it was a "crusade to avenge Greek honor"- no such justifaction could be used on any other conquests, herr Das, and your great genocidal mancial ends up dead with a knife in his throat from soem pissed of infantry man who has had enough of alexanders "world tour"

Before arguing, please accept the original PoD. I didn't come up with it, but anyway, accept it or don't discuss this at all.

His troops were getting less and less Greek from what I could discern. I'll re-read it again, I didn't pay too much attention to such detail...

hardly-Rome bruned the city, and cursed the crounds 9and sowed salt in a singuler furrow to represent it) however, at the end of the seige when the the carthian population had feld to its citadel Rome said anyone who wishes to leave in peace could, and was allowed to do - and they did- those whor emaied where the die hards, and died they did.

I wasn't talking about Rome.

Look, I still think that ALEXANDER of that timeline, being a megalomaniac, could order that. He did have some special troops (not unlike Janissaries) that carried out those orders. Most troops refused to kill off Roman brutally, not sure about Sparta and Judea.

I do myself believe that the author got carried away with COMPLETE slaughter. And I did myself tell him that before. IMHO its rather more of burning down the cities, as you said, and expelling the people, in Judea at least (see Babylonians and their behaviour there).

Okay, now before we get further... Xen. Please, write down all of your complaints/questions/problems, in a short form, in one list. Prefferably - without insults, without demonstrations of your fine wit (no sarcasm intended), without typoes. Without long-winded sentances ("lets say this, lets say that..."), because frankly us barbarians tend to be slow when confronted with some of the things you post because of it. You say that you only make typoes when hurried... Don't hurry. Think it over.

Post it. I don't have contact with the author - but I'll try to answer your questions based on the text as I understand it. I myself don't really have problems with Alexander ATTACKING Rome, I am more sceptical about success. Not sure about him being able to actually conquer a huge empire like described in the text, but meh. I don't myself believe it to be entirely realistic, though (this is the principal difference between us) I am actually willing to accept this as POSSIBLE, if very improbable. If you were to do this as well, out of politeness if not out of any other reason, it would be appreciated.

 

[das]

Now on other topics:
1) Cuivienen, interesting, I do remember that from somewhere... Maybe it could make the Americans annex Chihuahua as well now that they're at it (I remember that they wanted that one at some point...)? ACW is likely to be longer (then again, two new southern states, or one anyway, plus butterflies... could there be a separatist rebellion in the north instead?). Also, an American Yucatan might have some butterfly effects on the French - so some sort of intervention is not impossible. Not sure about plausibility, but a Taiwan-like scenario, with a CSA in Yucatan, sounds very interesting...

2) North King, that one is rather overdone, no? I keep bumping into "Amerinds With Nasty Diseases To Which Europeans Are Very Vulnerable" timelines, wherever I go. *mutters*

3) Also, I think I'll continue the "North King" timeline until 1200 or some such date. Its mostly an experiment - but if anybody wants to mod it, I wouldn't mind. After that... well, I have some ideas.

4) Any more guesses?

 

[alex994]

What would have happened if William the Conqueror was defeated by Harold at the Battle of Hastings? It would have changed world history!!!! no Hundred Years War, no Richard Coer De Lion and etc.

 

[das]

Hmm. Mixed blessing for England - on one hand, no disastrous foreign adventures, no compromising of their culture, on the other hand, more backwardness, much less development...

Actually, who's to prevent the much-stronger French (possibly led by an Aquitainean dynasty?) from taking over England as well?

 

[alex994]

Hmm. Mixed blessing for England - on one hand, no disastrous foreign adventures, no compromising of their culture, on the other hand, more backwardness, much less development...

Actually, who's to prevent the much-stronger French (possibly led by an Aquitainean dynasty?) from taking over England as well?

NOthing! They can embrace the greatness that is France and lead to a New Era! France-England would be the greatest power in Europe! And then the world

 

[North King]

Hmm. Mixed blessing for England - on one hand, no disastrous foreign adventures, no compromising of their culture, on the other hand, more backwardness, much less development...

Doubtful. England was the biggest and richest power of medieval Europe at that time. Far more likely is a more powerful, perhaps similar in advancement, England, with no Hundred years war.

 

[Oruc]

Nope!

 

[alex994]

Doubtful. England was the biggest and richest power of medieval Europe at that time. Far more likely is a more powerful, perhaps similar in advancement, England, with no Hundred years war.

Are we talking about the England that William Duke of Normandy conquered? Because it was a very backward country... kinda of isolated, certainly not the most richest and biggest power of medieval europe...

 

[North King]

Are we talking about the England that William Duke of Normandy conquered? Because it was a very backward country... kinda of isolated, certainly not the most richest and biggest power of medieval europe...

Yes, yes we are. And it happens that in 1066 it was a rather better place than France, Italy, or Spain.