Alternate History NESes; Spout some ideas!

[North King]

Just don't do an alternate history based in the early 15th century. That's what I'm working on right now, and it's coming along quite nicely.

 

[das]

What the? You're supposed to work on the Complete History of Mohenjo-daro!

 

[North King]

Am I?



Oh, yeah.

Hmm... I'm working on both at the same time...

 

[das]

Btw, an early 15th century althist was supposed to be the fifth option, but I forgot to add it.

Just PLEASE, don't let it be about the Valois pulling a Habsburg and gaining another major country (or two... ) by dynastic intrigue, sort of. Because that's what I planned for an althist I'll do one day.

 

[North King]

Hmm... Not really, though the Valois are very closely intermarrying with the ruling house of Aragon so far.

Edit: The PoD is actually concerning a very large Hussite rebellion, a continued Second Great Schism, and a lot of things stem from that... All from one PoD.

 

[Xen]

No comment about Iraq's and Ukraine's "puppetness"... though in both cases it, if we accept your opinion, only proves what I said.[/quote actually its rather your opinions antithesis; it proves thatth emodern world (which you seem to have a love affair with basing all your reasonings on) is crap for trying to peice together ancient politcal situations

The status quo rarely lasts - and when it does, it is hardly to the benefit of nations involved, because it invariably leads to stagnation. An arrangement of mutual benefit is nice and fine, (and honour is indeed a rare and little thing ) but eventually mutual benefit disappears as status quo changes.

and what do you base this one? the status quo of many a nation eve in our moder society has stayed the same since after world war one with the exception of periodic trouble spots; but that is what they are; trouble spots, and rarelly last more then a decade- the exception is the middle east where combat is the status quo

The problem with a surviving Roman Empire, generally, is that it will stagnate and begin to lag behind; in fact, that was partially what happened in the real world. A situation not unlike that of China will develop, and change will be resisted and feared (I get the impression that it was in OTL).

only if said empire encompasses all europe [AND the scholarship at Alexandria once again begins to fail itself]- christianty didnt help either, one might ass- but I make no pretensis- its your all wet dream to have a megalithic Rome survive (and in your case, becoem a western china), but in my mind a far more likelly (and desireable) situation is that Rome it is last leg survives, and bypasses most of your doomsday prophecies on its technological development

Luckily for Europe, Roman Empire was not eternal, and eventually competition between the different states developed, causing progress and the eventual European rise to pre-eminence. The best scenario ofcourse would have been Rome fragmenting by itself and failing to reunify; the ancient Greek achievements would not be lost, whilst the status quo would be broken and Europe might rise to pre-eminence earlier. Try to organize something like that if you want, Xen... The best way would probably be to kill off Diocletian and have the Empire fall apart into numerous separate "Latinic" (ala Hellenic) states.

read above; allthough, history already did that; read up on the crisis of the third century; the Roman empire, temporarilly spilt up into three high competitve successor states, but so competitve that the Roman emperor Aurelian knocked the Palmyrans back into the fold, and the the emperor of the far western emperor, afraid of assasination, actually turned himself over to Aurelian

the beaty of a divergence at this timeline is that Rome still has sizable possesions; the east is knockedd off on a Romano-Parthian Hybrid (but traces itself back to Rome, along with its dynasties claim to power), and the far western empire formed itsefl because ti veiwed it could defedn Roman civlization in the west better then Rome could- the sitation worked out brilliantlly, each empire was able to concentrate on its one trouble spot; the Rhine, Danube, or Parthian border, and not have to worry about anything else, and were wildlly successful; moreover, the barbarian peoples, specifically the Gothic tribes were becomming more civilized.

 

[das]

actually its rather your opinions antithesis; it proves thatth emodern world (which you seem to have a love affair with basing all your reasonings on) is crap for trying to peice together ancient politcal situations

Don't see how is it an antithesis. Vespasian took Armenia, Bush took Iraq. The only difference is that Iraq wasn't a puppet, I guess...

and what do you base this one? the status quo of many a nation eve in our moder society has stayed the same since after world war one with the exception of periodic trouble spots; but that is what they are; trouble spots, and rarelly last more then a decade- the exception is the middle east where combat is the status quo

Status quo is being right now preserved by nuclear deterrents. But, again, why do you seem to think Rome and Persia could survive forever?

only if said empire encompasses all europe [AND the scholarship at Alexandria once again begins to fail itself]- christianty didnt help either, one might ass- but I make no pretensis- its your all wet dream to have a megalithic Rome survive (and in your case, becoem a western china), but in my mind a far more likelly (and desireable) situation is that Rome it is last leg survives, and bypasses most of your doomsday prophecies on its technological development

Huh? Please try to... correct the syntaxis. I don't see what are you trying to say. If you think I want Roman Empire to survive, you're very wrong.

read above; allthough, history already did that; read up on the crisis of the third century; the Roman empire, temporarilly spilt up into three high competitve successor states, but so competitve that the Roman emperor Aurelian knocked the Palmyrans back into the fold, and the the emperor of the far western emperor, afraid of assasination, actually turned himself over to Aurelian

That means they weren't competitive enough, damnit. One empire was able to crush the other two easily. What's the good in that?

I mean for neither of the states to be strong enough to deal with any of them.

the beaty of a divergence at this timeline is that Rome still has sizable possesions; the east is knockedd off on a Romano-Parthian Hybrid (but traces itself back to Rome, along with its dynasties claim to power), and the far western empire formed itsefl because ti veiwed it could defedn Roman civlization in the west better then Rome could- the sitation worked out brilliantlly, each empire was able to concentrate on its one trouble spot; the Rhine, Danube, or Parthian border, and not have to worry about anything else, and were wildlly successful; moreover, the barbarian peoples, specifically the Gothic tribes were becomming more civilized.

The problem is, they all united again. That is the problem - there need to be many states strong enough to fend back the attacks, yet too weak to conquer the others. That was what eventually developped in OTL and also was what allowed the rapid European progress.

 

[Xen]

Don't see how is it an antithesis. Vespasian took Armenia, Bush took Iraq. The only difference is that Iraq wasn't a puppet, I guess...

quite wrong, both in ancient, and modern history

1)Vespasian never "took" Armenia- it stayed indipendent until a short lived annexation under Trajan that was quicklly reversed (it was done only to better facillitate the invasion of Parthia)

2)you forget that a mere 20 years ago, Iraq was a US vassal (or rather puppet) state in holding off Iran (Persia) from (re)spreading into the middle east; poor iran, never did re-capture the glory of the Acheamaenids, did it? In the context of an NES, the player of the United States is merelly putting Iraq in its place- but its going poorlly, cause the mod is overlly harsh 9and likewise, the player of the EU seemd to have had a better strategy then the Russian player for lureing the Ukrain over to be either a satillite of it, or one day a full addition, perhaps)

Status quo is being right now preserved by nuclear deterrents. But, again, why do you seem to think Rome and Persia could survive forever?

the status quo was preserved long before now; a mere glance at histoey will show that over the course of the centuries certian trouble spots have flared up temporrarilly, and then quited down, but these "hot spots" are the exception -not the rule-; just take a look at europe; it is the status quo of after Rome split; the east is divded into a plethora of countries of small strength periodially infighting with each other as early tribes did; its takes outside intervention to either unite them against a larger power, or to stop fighting all together, while the largest tribes; the great sarmatian empire of the Steppes tries periodically to expand into the area to be continually rebuffed aftera while, The Greeks look down on everyone around them, and still hate the people directlly east of them, the Romanians are rather apatheitc unless threatend, and Poles still sit and make thier sausages.

the west of europe is still divded along the lines of Roman language, even though Roman culture came to domanite all of europe (and well beyond); the Birtish islses are still united but the parts that make it up are still at each others throats, this but where iot was one culture unifacation it is political unifacation, of which the celts are still prideful peoples, and instead of the battlefeild it is the football stadium where angry celtis soccer-hooligans now bloody eachother

no sir, the status quo has been going strong all over the world for mellinina- it is only the periodic disruption that is by far the exception again, and not the rule.

Huh? Please try to... correct the syntaxis. I don't see what are you trying to say. If you think I want Roman Empire to survive, you're very wrong.

ironic coming from a person who lives in the self proclaimed "3rd Rome"

I find more ironic that you ended up exactley how you did today because of Rome more then any other nation on earth, that your surrounds, melded by the eastern Roman empires culture that it dumped in great quantity on early Russians has melded and molded to where it is distinct, but still very, very Roman- what you rpoblem is with Rome I'll never know, but your a product of Rome just as much as I am; perhaps more so, in some ways, but the Irony the fates place onto the heads of men is not for me to question, or for you to loath

That means they weren't competitive enough, damnit. One empire was able to crush the other two easily. What's the good in that?

it was an example of what you suggested; it didnt work out because the central empire still had the best troops in the world (and indeed, the imperial army at this time was the best it ever was; it was imperial instability and failing economy that did it in, aside from constantien that is-) and the occasional glorius leader like Aurelian still came about once in awhile

The problem is, they all united again. That is the problem - there need to be many states strong enough to fend back the attacks, yet too weak to conquer the others. That was what eventually developped in OTL and also was what allowed the rapid European progress.

then go with my suggestion; the late Roman empire; that is the form it was in when the Ostrogths were enfranchised to rule it by the east, is perfect; its easilly defendable from the north/N. East/N.West due to the alps and balkan Mountain ranges, and the eastern empire wouldnt want to waste the resources on taking out a nation that it could potentially squueze a few allied soldired out once in awhile; the rest of europe meanwhile is under control of barbarian tribes, and this fules a highlly competitve europe where Rome survives in.

 

[das]

1)Vespasian never "took" Armenia- it stayed indipendent until a short lived annexation under Trajan that was quicklly reversed (it was done only to better facillitate the invasion of Parthia)

Well, whatever he took then.

2)you forget that a mere 20 years ago, Iraq was a US vassal (or rather puppet) state in holding off Iran (Persia) from (re)spreading into the middle east; poor iran, never did re-capture the glory of the Acheamaenids, did it? In the context of an NES, the player of the United States is merelly putting Iraq in its place- but its going poorlly, cause the mod is overlly harsh 9and likewise, the player of the EU seemd to have had a better strategy then the Russian player for lureing the Ukrain over to be either a satillite of it, or one day a full addition, perhaps)

Neither Iraq nor Ukraine were puppets as far as I am concerned. They had their own foreign policy.

the status quo was preserved long before now; a mere glance at histoey will show that over the course of the centuries certian trouble spots have flared up temporrarilly, and then quited down, but these "hot spots" are the exception -not the rule-; just take a look at europe; it is the status quo of after Rome split; the east is divded into a plethora of countries of small strength periodially infighting with each other as early tribes did; its takes outside intervention to either unite them against a larger power, or to stop fighting all together, while the largest tribes; the great sarmatian empire of the Steppes tries periodically to expand into the area to be continually rebuffed aftera while, The Greeks look down on everyone around them, and still hate the people directlly east of them, the Romanians are rather apatheitc unless threatend, and Poles still sit and make thier sausages.

the west of europe is still divded along the lines of Roman language, even though Roman culture came to domanite all of europe (and well beyond); the Birtish islses are still united but the parts that make it up are still at each others throats, this but where iot was one culture unifacation it is political unifacation, of which the celts are still prideful peoples, and instead of the battlefeild it is the football stadium where angry celtis soccer-hooligans now bloody eachother

no sir, the status quo has been going strong all over the world for mellinina- it is only the periodic disruption that is by far the exception again, and not the rule.

No comment, but you don't seem to know post-Roman history very well...

ironic coming from a person who lives in the self proclaimed "3rd Rome"

a) I didn't proclaim it that, some silly metropolitian did.
b) Third Rome being after Second Rome, which I don't dislike as much.

I find more ironic that you ended up exactley how you did today because of Rome more then any other nation on earth, that your surrounds, melded by the eastern Roman empires culture that it dumped in great quantity on early Russians has melded and molded to where it is distinct, but still very, very Roman- what you rpoblem is with Rome I'll never know, but your a product of Rome just as much as I am; perhaps more so, in some ways, but the Irony the fates place onto the heads of men is not for me to question, or for you to loath

Meh, we all ended up the way we are because history ended up the way it is. Besides, aren't you partially Italian?

Besides, I'd preffer to trust old Soviet history books on that and say that I'm who I am because of Urartu and Scythia.

it was an example of what you suggested; it didnt work out because the central empire still had the best troops in the world (and indeed, the imperial army at this time was the best it ever was; it was imperial instability and failing economy that did it in, aside from constantien that is-) and the occasional glorius leader like Aurelian still came about once in awhile

Precisely. It didn't work out because one state was capable of subjugating the others.

then go with my suggestion; the late Roman empire; that is the form it was in when the Ostrogths were enfranchised to rule it by the east, is perfect; its easilly defendable from the north/N. East/N.West due to the alps and balkan Mountain ranges, and the eastern empire wouldnt want to waste the resources on taking out a nation that it could potentially squueze a few allied soldired out once in awhile; the rest of europe meanwhile is under control of barbarian tribes, and this fules a highlly competitve europe where Rome survives in.

Good.

Now go and develop it.

 

[Dachs]

Argh! So much bickering! Posts too long! Too many quotes! :whine:

If anyone's done this, then pay less attention to this than you would anyway: What about a PoD in the early fourth century BC, where Manlius doesn't manage to successfully defend the Capitoline? Rome is wiped out by Gauls, and the burgeoning empire of Carthage continues its subjugation of Sicilia successfully...

 

[das]

If anyone's done this, then pay less attention to this than you would anyway: What about a PoD in the early fourth century BC, where Manlius doesn't manage to successfully defend the Capitoline? Rome is wiped out by Gauls, and the burgeoning empire of Carthage continues its subjugation of Sicilia successfully...

Eventually, a Celtitalian (ala Celtiberian) state rises as Gauls are assimilated by Latins. The warlike Celtic state soon begins to unify Italy, but this is resisted by Epirus, which scores several victories. Fearful of Epirus, Carthage and Celtitalia sign an alliance...

Meh, just some rumblings right now.

---

TEASER:

This is a very frightening world. A world of terror, a world of war.

At least in the 8th and 9th centuries.

This is a world where in 21st century, if we suppose Xen is born, Xen will say that if Snorri Bjarnsson had died young, the Vikings wouldn't have done anything notable - well, mabye some raids, or even short-time conquests, but nothing like in "OTL". If we suppose das is born, he will say that there is very little chance somebody won't unite the Vikings, or most of them anyway, but what will he do with them is likely to be different. Then the discussion will slowly degenerate into a semi-flame war about the foreign policies of modern Prussia, so lets not get into that.

This is a world... of North King, or as he was better known "Nord-Konung", or perhaps "Snorri Bjarnsson". A very interesting person indeed. He changed history, you know?

 

[das]

I'm working - rather slowly, alas - on the North King timeline.

While we wait... here's a guess-the-PoD map, for a different TL ofcourse. The year right now is 750.

 

[Dachs]

Octavian loses at Actium, or Antony conquers Parthia by starting his invasion earlier in the year?

 

[ThomAnder]

what happened to islam...

 

[Dachs]

If a Hellenistic Egypt survived, then the more tolerant Ptolemies would have assimilated it into their religions, or let it stay as a cult. Same with Christianity: the inexperienced Roman governors like Pilate would not have known how to work Jesus Christ; but the Ptolemaic ones could have handled the situation better, having done it for far longer in places like Coele Syria and Judaea itself, before the Seleucids got there.

 

[silver 2039]

Mohammad converted to CHristanity like in Agent of Byzantium?

 

[Dachs]

Mohammad converted to CHristanity like in Agent of Byzantium?

Look at the powerful Egypt, though. How would we get that there?...Is the PoD in the first century BC, or earlier?

 

[das]

Octavian loses at Actium, or Antony conquers Parthia by starting his invasion earlier in the year?

No, later.

what happened to islam...

What is that "Islam" you speak of?

If a Hellenistic Egypt survived, then the more tolerant Ptolemies would have assimilated it into their religions, or let it stay as a cult. Same with Christianity: the inexperienced Roman governors like Pilate would not have known how to work Jesus Christ; but the Ptolemaic ones could have handled the situation better, having done it for far longer in places like Coele Syria and Judaea itself, before the Seleucids got there.

It is marginally Hellenistic (its rulers are very assimilated by now), though the Christians weren't very fortunate in it, mostly fleeing for Western Europe or dying in failed rebellions.

Mohammad converted to CHristanity like in Agent of Byzantium?

That is even less likely in ATL. If only because there is no Mohammed... And Christianity is much weaker in the Middle East.

Look at the powerful Egypt, though. How would we get that there?...Is the PoD in the first century BC, or earlier?

Later.

 

[das]

Come on, don't give up yet!

Hint: it has something to do with internal Roman history.

 

[ThomAnder]

Constantinople was conquered so the eastern empire switched capital...?