Alternate History NESes; Spout some ideas!

[das]

Nah, as I said, the Arabs were rising anyway; Mohammed gave them religion and unity, but IMHO they would have expanded anyway, and until then, the endless Byzantine-Persian wars would continue. If anything, the Byzantines will be weaker - at first, anyway.

 

[ThomAnder]

In OTL, didn't the persian-byzantine war just ended, then the arabs struck?

 

[Xen]

Nah, as I said, the Arabs were rising anyway; Mohammed gave them religion and unity, but IMHO they would have expanded anyway, and until then, the endless Byzantine-Persian wars would continue. If anything, the Byzantines will be weaker - at first, anyway.

I respectfully disagree; the arabs wer eno different then then they had been for the last 500 years; with no muhammed, thier woudl have been no rise of the arabs, because they woudl still be infighting, and killign each other- similer to How arabia acted relitivlly soon after muhammed died, and Arabia proper recessed into barbarism once more

to boot, you need to remember that, right before the "great arab burst" emperor Heaclius and conqpured the persian empire, and had installed a puppet ruler on its throne and in the early days of the arab expansion, Byzantien and Persian border garrsions worked together[/v[ to try to comabt them, but both had been spent by thie rown great final confrontation; the persiand ied out, and only the supremcy of the still loselyl Roman Byzantien armies saved the day for them.

if anything, no Muhammed means a strong Byzantine-Persian alliance for at least a generation, more then enough time for both to re-form thier armies, and strength, and perhaps even forge a lasting alliance.

 

[das]

I've been working on an alt-WWI scenario (i.e. for a WWI NES). Different alliances, not much territorial change yet really. After I finish it I guess I'll start the No Islam one, though I'll probably have to deal with some other stuff first - mostly stories/orders/updates. But I think I'll find some time.

 

[das]

I respectfully disagree; the arabs wer eno different then then they had been for the last 500 years; with no muhammed, thier woudl have been no rise of the arabs, because they woudl still be infighting, and killign each other- similer to How arabia acted relitivlly soon after muhammed died, and Arabia proper recessed into barbarism once more

Um, no. They WERE advancing, Muhammed merely sped it up (that said, why can't it find a Genghis Khan-like leader instead? Or some other such). The Quraysh 'Abd Manaf house was on the way to unifying Hejjaz anyway, being by far the strongest there; in OTL Muhammed disrupted its power, but without him, it would have probably united Arabs by the 9th century at latest. Ofcourse, it would be weaker then the OTL one, which is why I think it will only be able to capture Syria (well, and Palestine territories and the like); and even that is due to the Byzantine Empire being overstretched.

to boot, you need to remember that, right before the "great arab burst" emperor Heaclius and conqpured the persian empire, and had installed a puppet ruler on its throne and in the early days of the arab expansion, Byzantien and Persian border garrsions worked together[/v[ to try to comabt them, but both had been spent by thie rown great final confrontation; the persiand ied out, and only the supremcy of the still loselyl Roman Byzantien armies saved the day for them.

f anything, no Muhammed means a strong Byzantine-Persian alliance for at least a generation, more then enough time for both to re-form thier armies, and strength, and perhaps even forge a lasting alliance.

A lasting alliance is unlikely, IMHO. And after they rebuild their strenght... guess what they do with it? Unless Arabs attack in that precise moment when they have already rejunivated themselves, but have not yet begun fighting again, they will not be defeated at first.

Also, Persia was quite unstable anyway, as was - as I already stated - the Byzantine Empire. IMHO its hard for them to actually defeat it. Its a given that the Arabs will capture a whole deal less.

 

[Xen]

Um, no. They WERE advancing, Muhammed merely sped it up (that said, why can't it find a Genghis Khan-like leader instead? Or some other such). The Quraysh 'Abd Manaf house was on the way to unifying Hejjaz anyway, being by far the strongest there; in OTL Muhammed disrupted its power, but without him, it would have probably united Arabs by the 9th century at latest. Ofcourse, it would be weaker then the OTL one, which is why I think it will only be able to capture Syria (well, and Palestine territories and the like); and even that is due to the Byzantine Empire being overstretched.

well, prove it; unfing Hedjaz, and Unifyng all Arabia are VERY different things, and one dosent autonomatically lead to another; indeed, it woudl take a religious radical to even want unify the deep desert anyway; thier is no practicle reason to do so, and until the 19th, and 20th centuries, thier was no effective way to governme these lands regardless

A lasting alliance is unlikely, IMHO. And after they rebuild their strenght... guess what they do with it? Unless Arabs attack in that precise moment when they have already rejunivated themselves, but have not yet begun fighting again, they will not be defeated at first.

you cant remove the vassalage question however; persia was unstbale, and had been fighting a civil war when the arabs came up, but a civil war that the Byzantine puppet had been winning, IIRC. No Muhammed=no arab expansion=lasting zperisan dynasty=lasting persian/Byzantine alliance

 

[das]

well, prove it; unfing Hedjaz, and Unifyng all Arabia are VERY different things, and one dosent autonomatically lead to another; indeed, it woudl take a religious radical to even want unify the deep desert anyway; thier is no practicle reason to do so, and until the 19th, and 20th centuries, thier was no effective way to governme these lands regardless

a) Unifying Hejjaz or unifying the Bedouin tribes is enough by itself.
b) They were making steps towards both.
c) Hejjaz was already unified before AT LEAST once, so I doubt they can't repeat it.

you cant remove the vassalage question however; persia was unstbale, and had been fighting a civil war when the arabs came up, but a civil war that the Byzantine puppet had been winning, IIRC. No Muhammed=no arab expansion=lasting zperisan dynasty=lasting persian/Byzantine alliance

Look, that was ONE situation. But how does it develop later? Depends on personality. And that's not very easy to guess... Also, the Turkic tribes to the northeast were already rising. They could have taken opportunity of a weakened (i.e. vassalized) Persia.

 

[Xen]

a) Unifying Hejjaz or unifying the Bedouin tribes is enough by itself.
b) They were making steps towards both.
c) Hejjaz was already unified before AT LEAST once, so I doubt they can't repeat it.

1)hardley; niethe rby far is enough; the arabs didwhat they did because of religious fervor, not because they had before Muhammed, wanted to create a giant empire
2)I demand proof that they were makign any sort of strides towards unifying the Beduin tribes; if you can not provide it, then rest your claim
3)and look what happend the first time Hejaz has been unfied; not much of anything

Look, that was ONE situation. But how does it develop later? Depends on personality. And that's not very easy to guess... Also, the Turkic tribes to the northeast were already rising. They could have taken opportunity of a weakened (i.e. vassalized) Persia.

its only not easy to guess if you dont know the history behind, and how such feudal alligences work (because while thet arnt portrayed as being such, the persians were just as honour bound as anyone else was, perhaps more so, to live up to thier word) The Byzantine emperor had placed the dynasty on its throne, in return for a swearing fo alligence, that woudl be carried ont he head of his house; as long as that dynasty ruled, persia woudl be bonded by this pact to to Byzantium ad infinitum, and while quite a few of your stories and plots deal with betrayal, it actually dosent happen on such huge a scale as often as people like to think it did -that whay the ones that did happen are so famous, or rather, infamous

 

[das]

1) Uh-huh. So, basically you think that one person is as significant as to completely reverse a trend, such as for instance the Arabic expansion. I don't agree, but from what I know of such arguments there is no point to them. Might as well say "Yes is it" "Not it isn't" "Yes it is" a few times. Not sure about the Arabic situation, but IMHO its comparable with the Mongol one... where the most important factor was not Genghis, who, incidentally, had many competitors, but climatic change. "Arab burst" was bound to happen, by the same comparsion, but HOW it would happen largely depended on who was in charge of it; in this case, the Quyrash. Oh, and about that religious fervor... the Quyrash had that as well, and in fact were something of the resident Pope, though ofcourse there were a lot of differences.

2) Within Hejjaz at least they were a hegemon in position to unify the lesser tribes by the time those plans were upset by Mohammed (that said, Mohammed was one of their own, if from a separate branch and orphaned... hmm, if he never became an orphan he could have, rather then create Islam, try and come to power with the Quyrash and then unite Hejjaz). As for Bedouins, am rather unsure, but they did make numerous trade agreements with them and solved tribal disputes. So, yes, not much done in that direction, but I don't see why a visionary ruler can't, like Mohammed, simply form an even stronger alliance with the Bedouin tribes then before; actually, it would be even easier then for Mohammed.

3) Circumstances change with time, Xen...

its only not easy to guess if you dont know the history behind

Um... You contradict yourself. First, it seems that Mohammed alone was irreplaceable and it was only because of the religious fervor that he inspired that he was able to unify Arabia. And now, suddenly personality becomes both linear and easy to guess based on the history of Persia of the time.

because while thet arnt portrayed as being such, the persians were just as honour bound as anyone else was, perhaps more so, to live up to thier word

Honor-boundedness is a) not quite a limiting force for a ruler of a rejunivated Persia that you suggest after one generation of peace and b) not hereditary.

The Byzantine emperor had placed the dynasty on its throne, in return for a swearing fo alligence, that woudl be carried ont he head of his house; as long as that dynasty ruled, persia woudl be bonded by this pact to to Byzantium ad infinitum, and while quite a few of your stories and plots deal with betrayal, it actually dosent happen on such huge a scale as often as people like to think it did -that whay the ones that did happen are so famous, or rather, infamous

As long as that dynasty ruled. And after it no longer rules, which is at a very optimistic maximum circa 300 years?

No disagreement with the latter part.

All that said... if you know so much about the period, write the timeline yourself. I'm eager to see it. Ofcourse, I still plan to write mine, the one with the Arabs still expanding, though not quite as much as in OTL, but lets see yours first.

 

[Azale]

is it hedjaz or hejjaz? I know it as hedjaz from Europa Universalis, but it WAS made in Sweden....

 

[das]

Would seem to be "Hejjaz"...

I think I have an idea. Lets start a "No Islam" althistory contest here! Invite GM, IP and NK here as well, and also send out scouting parties to look for SKILORD!

 

[Xen]

1) Uh-huh. So, basically you think that one person is as significant as to completely reverse a trend, such as for instance the Arabic expansion.

History is a combination of massive public movments, and engagments by particuler historical "charicters", whitout whom, many of the great events in the worlds history would not have happend had they not existed/coem to power; this is more true of Mohammed then it is of most leaders, because the religious fervour he installed was so important to Arab expansion

I don't agree, but from what I know of such arguments there is no point to them. Might as well say "Yes is it" "Not it isn't" "Yes it is" a few times. Not sure about the Arabic situation, but IMHO its comparable with the Mongol one... where the most important factor was not Genghis, who, incidentally, had many competitors, but climatic change. "Arab burst" was bound to happen, by the same comparsion, but HOW it would happen largely depended on who was in charge of it;

If that were true, then you could, like a person could give good evidence that conflict amoungst the Mongol tribes was agian reaching a climax, coudl show that indeed, the Arabs had entered a series of conflicts that woudlr esult in large maount sof the area comign under the rule of one tribe; unfortunateley, no such events took place, at least to my knowledge on the subject, and what conflicts thier were primarilly localized, and small scale; perhaps thier was a new attempt to unify Hejjaz, but thats not surprising, as the area has already had at least 3 kingdoms in in tha areas history that ruled over the entire area, and the Axumites out of ethiopean, as welll as the Sassanian Persians had both dominated the region for a time; unify Hejjazz=nothing, it just means another arabic merchant prince wants to control the inscense trade to Europe and Persia.

The ENTIRETY of Arabic expansion IS due to Islam, and persona of muhammed; in continuation was due still to Muhammeds familly, whom had been raptured by those values instilled by Muhammed upon them, and taking up his words, his cause, and his sword, continued arabio-islamic expansion.

the only reason the Arabs were successful is

A)they had religious fervour, and a fast swept, minimal loss unifacation of the arabian peninisula (which wouldnt last much beyong muhammed, which shows how pivitol this single man was to the entire unifacation of the area)
B)the Byzantio-Sassaninan conflict had left both sides exhausted; the fact that Justianians ill-planned requnest of the west stretched Byzantine forces thin was no boon to the Byzantines either, mind you.
C)ANother of Justinians follies was that he tried hard to make the Orthadox faith the only branch of christianity, and so persecuted the other churches present in palestine, and Egypt, and made these areas problematic; to the point they welcomed the arabs as liberators in some areas.

2) Within Hejjaz at least they were a hegemon in position to unify the lesser tribes by the time those plans were upset by Mohammed (that said, Mohammed was one of their own, if from a separate branch and orphaned... hmm, if he never became an orphan he could have, rather then create Islam, try and come to power with the Quyrash and then unite Hejjaz). As for Bedouins, am rather unsure, but they did make numerous trade agreements with them and solved tribal disputes. So, yes, not much done in that direction, but I don't see why a visionary ruler can't, like Mohammed, simply form an even stronger alliance with the Bedouin tribes then before; actually, it would be even easier then for Mohammed.

3) Circumstances change with time, Xen...

I'd liek to see soem evidence for that as well; how would a ruler from Hejazz have an easier time gettign the nomadic arabs on his side then a fervent religious man spreading his word by pen and sword?

I'm not sure abotu trade agreements; thier were no major overland trade routes in arabia during this time; all trade was conducted via the Red sea, and the Persian gulf.

Um... You contradict yourself. First, it seems that Mohammed alone was irreplaceable and it was only because of the religious fervor that he inspired that he was able to unify Arabia. And now, suddenly personality becomes both linear and easy to guess based on the history of Persia of the time.

not contradiction, merelly an extention; thier is no one great idea that can cover anything, and if you limit yourself to one train of thought, your bound for faileure; arab expansion may be covered by one umbrella topic; but the Persian faleure, in its own distinct topic all together.

Honor-boundedness is a) not quite a limiting force for a ruler of a rejunivated Persia that you suggest after one generation of peace and b) not hereditary.

1)its not rejuvated; its army is restocked, and the economy will be back up on its feat, but the land is still a nomianl vassal of Byzantium
2)Persian dynasties, similer to how all other dynasties work, were hereditary

As long as that dynasty ruled. And after it no longer rules, which is at a very optimistic maximum circa 300 years?

only 30 years woudl be enough

All that said... if you know so much about the period, write the timeline yourself. I'm eager to see it. Ofcourse, I still plan to write mine, the one with the Arabs still expanding, though not quite as much as in OTL, but lets see yours first.

personally, I find that particuler tangent boring; I'm more interested in seeign the results of surviving western empire, and lapsing eastern empire, but no one seemed interested in ehtier the time line, or the map, so thier you go.

 

[das]

History is a combination of massive public movments, and engagments by particuler historical "charicters", whitout whom, many of the great events in the worlds history would not have happend had they not existed/coem to power; this is more true of Mohammed then it is of most leaders, because the religious fervour he installed was so important to Arab expansion

Yes. Events. But the Arab burst, by then, was bound to happen anyway; which way exactly, however, and how strong depended. A weaker, and much less extensive (only "Syria") burst is well within the realms of possible, I believe.

If that were true, then you could, like a person could give good evidence that conflict amoungst the Mongol tribes was agian reaching a climax, coudl show that indeed, the Arabs had entered a series of conflicts that woudlr esult in large maount sof the area comign under the rule of one tribe; unfortunateley, no such events took place, at least to my knowledge on the subject, and what conflicts thier were primarilly localized, and small scale; perhaps thier was a new attempt to unify Hejjaz, but thats not surprising, as the area has already had at least 3 kingdoms in in tha areas history that ruled over the entire area, and the Axumites out of ethiopean, as welll as the Sassanian Persians had both dominated the region for a time; unify Hejjazz=nothing, it just means another arabic merchant prince wants to control the inscense trade to Europe and Persia.

The Quyrash already did have control over that trade, for the most part...

The unification that was going on was more like Roman unification of Italy, from what I could discern. As for Hejjaz' unification being insignificant, not so. It could be used as a springboard for the conquest of Syria.

The ENTIRETY of Arabic expansion IS due to Islam, and persona of muhammed; in continuation was due still to Muhammeds familly, whom had been raptured by those values instilled by Muhammed upon them, and taking up his words, his cause, and his sword, continued arabio-islamic expansion.

No, it was more due to the growth of population that needed to be somehow supported outside of the desert. Mohammed gave them a cause. Tell me why some other person can't give them another cause?

the only reason the Arabs were successful is

Maybe the only THREE reasons?

a) That's two reasons in one. But anyway. Religious fervour alone won't take you far, albeit it provided an ideology that could have been provided by a charismatic and ambitious ruler instead. And that unification of Arabia... can't say it was minimum-loss, but either way, I believe they could have unified much of it anyway. Not all sources agree on control being lost immediately, btw. But nevermind.

b) Yep. That overstretchment was incidentally still there, and likely to remain for some time.

c) A one that was not vindicated by any of his successors and likely to continue, and, as far as opressions go, become even worse...

I'd liek to see soem evidence for that as well; how would a ruler from Hejazz have an easier time gettign the nomadic arabs on his side then a fervent religious man spreading his word by pen and sword?

Because he already, as the ruler of Mecca, have some more established religious authority? Because he controlled much of Arabian trade? Because he was the strongest regional power? Because he, using the situation derived from these three reasons, already was enough of an authority for the nearby tribes at least to solve their tribal disputes?

I'm not sure abotu trade agreements; thier were no major overland trade routes in arabia during this time; all trade was conducted via the Red sea, and the Persian gulf.

Then what the hell, I might ask, was Mohammed doing before the whole prophesizing thing? There was trade in Hejjaz.

not contradiction, merelly an extention; thier is no one great idea that can cover anything, and if you limit yourself to one train of thought, your bound for faileure; arab expansion may be covered by one umbrella topic; but the Persian faleure, in its own distinct topic all together.

Um... in other words, in Arabia personality can differ and is important, but in Persia it can be guessed (somehow) from the knowledge of its history? Btw, I still don't quite understand how you are supposed to do that.

1)its not rejuvated; its army is restocked, and the economy will be back up on its feat, but the land is still a nomianl vassal of Byzantium
2)Persian dynasties, similer to how all other dynasties work, were hereditary

1) IMHO rejunivation doesn't have much to do with political status. I meant economy and army.
2) Did I say they weren't? Merely that even if one ruler was loyal to the Byzantines, the next one didn't have to be loyal to them.

only 30 years woudl be enough

A 30-year dynasty? A one-ruler dynasty, probably, unless they got killed off at a fast rate. Either way, it doesn't imply a very stable Persia...

personally, I find that particuler tangent boring;

Eh? Doesn't seem so from your argumentation. Honestly, I think you should give it a try, you seem to have something of a vision for an Islam-less world.

 

[Xen]

Yes. Events. But the Arab burst, by then, was bound to happen anyway; which way exactly, however, and how strong depended. A weaker, and much less extensive (only "Syria") burst is well within the realms of possible, I believe.

But PROOF is needed for this; I have never a scrap of evidence that points to the siuation in arabia being ANY different hen it had been for 500 years previous

The Quyrash already did have control over that trade, for the most part...

youd be surprised what implies by "control" generally this is littl emore then "we're strong enough to impose a tax when you pass by", and not actual control; trade was still conducted the same as it had been since the first century BCE

The unification that was going on was more like Roman unification of Italy, from what I could discern. As for Hejjaz' unification being insignificant, not so. It could be used as a springboard for the conquest of Syria.

Syria is actually going to be the HARDEST area in the region to take; Plaestine, even Jeruslam, woudl be a peace of cake, but Syria, and the city of Anthioch? You talkign about a Prize the Byzantine woudl fight over as much of thie rhistory as they were able to, and surprisnglly, often enough, they were able to sieze the city, and keep it under thier control when it had been taken

No, it was more due to the growth of population that needed to be somehow supported outside of the desert. Mohammed gave them a cause. Tell me why some other person can't give them another cause?

I've never seen any evidence for a growth of Arab population, its plausible, but not probable, IMO

Maybe the only THREE reasons?

a) That's two reasons in one. But anyway. Religious fervour alone won't take you far, albeit it provided an ideology that could have been provided by a charismatic and ambitious ruler instead. And that unification of Arabia... can't say it was minimum-loss, but either way, I believe they could have unified much of it anyway. Not all sources agree on control being lost immediately, btw. But nevermind.

they go hand in hand; you can have one, and if you dont have th eother, you dont have success; the Christian curusades; the religiosu rpecdent was thier to luanch over 7 crusades to claim the holy land; however, they only had varying success, depeding on who the leader was; the third crusade, whiel ended in a compromize, was due to Arab strength, that the Crusaders under Richard had prooved to be able to over come (but the huge resources of Arabia prevented Richard from takign Jerusalem, because if he did take it, and it waslikelly he could have, given a seige, he woudl have little way to defedn once he returned to England; so he just didnt bother conqeroring Jerusalem in the first place)

it sliek I said before; history is driven by a combination of popular movments, and certin characters, and personalities whom can help guide these movements; often enough, ingrainign themselves so deeplly, that they becoem the heart of that driving force, and so the movements becoems inseperable from them; this happens to different degrees, soemtimes not at all; but with religious movments, its a neccesity, and for the military expansion fo a religion, such as Islams, its an absolute; no muhammed, no arab expansion, that simple.

b) Yep. That overstretchment was incidentally still there, and likely to remain for some time.

all depends; if no arab conflict comes about, the Byzantien empire isnt over stretched; it can concentrate on defending its northern borderlands

c) A one that was not vindicated by any of his successors and likely to continue, and, as far as opressions go, become even worse...

no mention of it beyond the inactment has ever coem up in the histories I have read, and so i assume that no leader after Justianian thought much of it; likelly, it was only orthodox preists who goaded th elocal commanders into enforceing them, more then the local govenor, so if it woudl becoem worse is open for debate; I honestlyl think that over time it woudl probabley coem to a stop, but perhaps not.

Because he already, as the ruler of Mecca, have some more established religious authority? Because he controlled much of Arabian trade? Because he was the strongest regional power?

the sword

Because he, using the situation derived from these three reasons, already was enough of an authority for the nearby tribes at least to solve their tribal disputes?

the pen

Then what the hell, I might ask, was Mohammed doing before the whole prophesizing thing? There was trade in Hejjaz.

apperentlly, he was bust wandering the deserts as an exile, and sleeping in caves

Um... in other words, in Arabia personality can differ and is important, but in Persia it can be guessed (somehow) from the knowledge of its history? Btw, I still don't quite understand how you are supposed to do that.

the more orginized, and well educated the nation, the less the leaders actually matter for total leadership; this has its exceptions, but Persia was a beaten nation; they had lost, and had no choice, for the moment, to accept the rule of a Byzantine endorsed king

1) IMHO rejunivation doesn't have much to do with political status. I meant economy and army.

rejuvantion implies they are free from the bond to Byzantium; unless the Byzantien endorsed dynasty had been completelyl over thrown (which woudl require a civil war, paradoxically, keeping them from that rejuvation for quite a bit longer) they would not be "rejuvanated"; they woudl have to continue being a nominal lap dog for the Byzantines at worst, and at best they woudl be a free state, and Byzantine ally.

2) Did I say they weren't? Merely that even if one ruler was loyal to the Byzantines, the next one didn't have to be loyal to them.

if hes of the same dynasty, he's held by his famillies oath to the Byzantine empire.
[/quote]
A 30-year dynasty? A one-ruler dynasty, probably, unless they got killed off at a fast rate. Either way, it doesn't imply a very stable Persia...[/quote]
long enough to halt the arabs, then they can die off, and Persia and Byzantium can continue thier infighting, if that makes you happy

Eh? Doesn't seem so from your argumentation. Honestly, I think you should give it a try, you seem to have something of a vision for an Islam-less world.

I dotn care about an Islam-less world, I'm just a firm beliver that "alternate histories" should be realistic, and not have "Dues ex Machina" strew all through them, creating perverse historicle situations; I'd prefer a well thought out, historical, and realistic alternat history to one that creates large empire arbitrarilly.

 

[das]

Personally I don't really see a point to keeping up the argument (or, rather, am rather hard-pressed for time right now to actually search for "proof" knowing that you will find a way to dispute that as well). I don't think that Mohammed was the only one who could have done what he did, and I don't think religious fervor was the only way to unify Arabia. Yes, it is possible that Byzantium and Persia would have continued to be allies for 30 or 300 years, and that Arabia would have remained a peninsula with some silly trading pricnes and bedouins running around. It is just as possible that Arabs would have conquered Palestine and Syria using a large monophisite rising after the succesful monophisite infiltration of Arabia - which was already underway, sorta - gives them an ideologic reason to interfere, that Persia would have been overran by the Turks and all the other stuff I thought up recently. Within the world of "No Islam" there still are a lot of PoDs, just as many as in OTL, so either situation is quite possible.

So, there.

 

[Insane_Panda]

Has anyone noticed that a whole slew of rivers are done incorrectly on the world map? Such as the Elbe and the Rhine? If you try to do the austro-hungarian empire properly with Prague at the end of the Elbe river, it really distorts germany because the Rhine river is drawn too sharply and abit to far east.

 

[das]

Fix it! Fix it!

 

[Insane_Panda]

To kingdom come! Thy will be done!!!

[look in NES map thread soon]

 

[Himalia]

I really like all these alternative history concepts. The start of all the alternative history stuff i did was due to the campaigns on Conquests. I played the Rise of Rome one as the Carthagians. History was ever so slightly changed in the fact that Rome was crushed by Carthagia. The game ended and ithought it would be kinda cool to continue the second part of the campaign from this point. For obvioues reason you cant as it would make no sence. Anyway i play alot of games multiplayer so between us we moded the scenario to accomodate this and played on from there. Bit by bit we moded other parts of the world, new maps etc and played out all parts of world history. As these gams went on we eventually allowed the games to overlap with each other. One part in particular i remember was that Troy evectivelly prevented the Napoleonic wars before they even got going. Hows that for a change in history.

 

[das]

Interesting... but I somehow doubt that in a world where Rome was crushed by Carthage Napoleonic Wars had a very large chances of happening anyway.