Alternate History Thread III

[North King]

Lead poisoning might have has some effect, but it was hardly a nation destroyer.

 

[alex994]

I have a question concerning China and Rome. How come whenever a chinese dynasty falls apart and the land split into many factions, it always manages to come back together, whereas Rome was never unified again..?

Well, off the top of my head here are some of the reasons why "China" keeps on repeating itself.

1. First off, any foreign invaders that conquer and settle on a piece of China usually gets sinized over a generation or two falling in love with Chinese culture and usually tries to become "more chinese" such as the Yue during the Warring States and etc. That and the usual barbarians around China have usually been under Chinese influence for a very long time, unlike the Angles, Saxons and etc that took over portions of Rome. Yes, they had had long contact with Rome, but Rome's culture and etc wasn't particulary attractive towards them so when they took over a piece of it, they saw no need to do things the "Roman" way while the barbarians in China did.

2. Unlike the Roman Empire which was seperated by many large and imposing geographical features such as the Alps, Pyrennes, English Channel, Mediterranean Sea and etc China's features are much more "soft" or so to speak. There are no great mountain chains on the same level as Europe's that cuts China apart into several distinct geographical areas so splitting up into as many successor states weren't exactly as easy.

3. China could be said to be more defensible then the Roman Empire. Rome had the Rhine and the Danube in Europe for instance which for a long time helped yet eventually her forces were overrunned. China had the sea to the east, mountains to the west, jungles to the south, and the desert to the north. Quite defensive really, most of the time.

4. Government wise, Chinese dynasties tend to be stable for around the first 200 years and then slowly decline with the dynasty then either ending in civil war, or foreign conquest. Now of course, after that happens the participants in the fight don't just settle for the piece of land they want, they want ALL of China. Why settle for less when you could have it all?

5. Army wise, this part is just speculative of course, so dachs, don't shoot me. Rome, as in the "Roman Empire" and not the Byzantine, maintained a professional army which by Chinese standards were small. Chinese armies, while made up of mostly conscripts and *gulps* inferior to Roman troops were large enough to guard their long borders against barbarians.

Yeah... I'm going to get crucified.

 

[Disenfrancised]

I agree with most of your points alex, but i would also like to add that china and rome faced quite different challenges from the outer barbarians when the empires spilt apart - China had small populations of mobile steppe nomads that would raid and casue devestation and even take over, but not settle. Whilst rome faced migrations and invasions (germanic etc) that were much larger in size and staying power and brought alot of their own culture and settled in the conquered lands, reducing the abiltiy of the roman culture to turn them. Thus China remained chinese (and thus a single cultural bloc to reunify) whilst the roman empire was divided up into block of alien cultures invading from the north and east.

 

[Dachs]

Yeah, I agree largely with dis. China, until maybe the Mongols, didn't really have to fight a mass migration of a people, while Europe was enduring those up to the ninth century AD.

Crucifixion was invented by those Punic baby-killers, anyway.

 

[Israelite9191]

Geography, it is all geography. The Mediterranean Basin has at least six major peninsulas (Iberian, Italian, Balkan, Anatolian, Sinai, and Cyrenaic), all of which are seperated from the surrounding territory by major geographic barriers (the Pyrenees, the Alps, Balkan Mountains, Bosporus, Tigris, Euphrates, Caucuses, Negev Desert, Eastern Desert, Sahara). This automatically creates seperate cultural, political, etc. blocs. Even in N. Africa the Atlases and the extension of the Sahara creates different regions. Then, within blocs, geographic regions are created. In the Balkans for instance various mountains, peninsulas, etc. create different politcal and cultural entities.

On the other hand, geography has created an easily united China. If you are familiar with Egypt, then it may help to think of China as a giant Egypt. Like Egypt, China is united by water ways. While Egypt has the Nile, China has the Yangtze and Huang He. Together, they do the job of the Nile connecting the inland and the coast as well as creating large food producing regions. Also like Egypt, China is defended by geographic barriers. For Egypt the Mediterranean and, more importantly, the Sahara, Eastern, Sinai, and Negev Deserts created a practically uncrossable system of natural defenses. For China, the Tibetan Plateau, the Gobi and Taklaman Deserts, the jungles of S.E. Asia, and the severe cold of Manchuria, Chinese Turkestan, and Mongolia has made China easily defensable and thus insulated. The comparisons go on, but I will stop here and sum up. Basically, China is one large easily defendable and easily unitable region whereas the Mediterranean Basin is the union of hundreds of various and extraordinarily different regions that are incredibly hard to unite and equally hard to defend.

 

[jalapeno_dude]

Geography, it is all geography. The Mediterranean Basin has at least six major peninsulas (Iberian, Italian, Balkan, Anatolian, Sinai, and Cyrenaic), all of which are seperated from the surrounding territory by major geographic barriers (the Pyrenees, the Alps, Balkan Mountains, Bosporus, Tigris, Euphrates, Caucuses, Negev Desert, Eastern Desert, Sahara). This automatically creates seperate cultural, political, etc. blocs. Even in N. Africa the Atlases and the extension of the Sahara creates different regions. Then, within blocs, geographic regions are created. In the Balkans for instance various mountains, peninsulas, etc. create different politcal and cultural entities.

On the other hand, geography has created an easily united China. If you are familiar with Egypt, then it may help to think of China as a giant Egypt. Like Egypt, China is united by water ways. While Egypt has the Nile, China has the Yangtze and Huang He. Together, they do the job of the Nile connecting the inland and the coast as well as creating large food producing regions. Also like Egypt, China is defended by geographic barriers. For Egypt the Mediterranean and, more importantly, the Sahara, Eastern, Sinai, and Negev Deserts created a practically uncrossable system of natural defenses. For China, the Tibetan Plateau, the Gobi and Taklaman Deserts, the jungles of S.E. Asia, and the severe cold of Manchuria, Chinese Turkestan, and Mongolia has made China easily defensable and thus insulated. The comparisons go on, but I will stop here and sum up. Basically, China is one large easily defendable and easily unitable region whereas the Mediterranean Basin is the union of hundreds of various and extraordinarily different regions that are incredibly hard to unite and equally hard to defend.

I'm assuming you've read the epilogue to Guns, Germs, and Steel, correct?

 

[Symphony D.]

Yes... and if Rome went industrial and started building railroads and, perhaps, say, discovered electricty, those problems would rather rapidly evaporate for them, despite the geography.

 

[North King]

I would say the problems would never have surfaced if they had kept their frontiers intact.

 

[Cuivienen]

Here's a new create-your-own PoD map and list of nations. The map is based off of a very old das PoD map (no Enlightenment) but radically changed with the goal of creating a very multipolar world. The year is 1750.

Some important things to keep in mind: the Netherlands, Scandinavia and Burgundy are all closely allied, primarily against Britain. Britain and Aquitaine are more loosely allied, as are Venice and the Byzantines. The primary reason the Netherlands has managed to conquer so much colonial territory is because the Burgundian (French) population are the primary colonialists of the Netherlands, and French is the lingua franca of many Dutch colonies.

Some other bits of note: Spain never had a colonial empire in the New World, allowing some native nations to survive. The Dutch have also supported Tarasca and Quiché against the British, as they have done with other native nations in other places. Britain was the primary instigator in the split of France, and originally both Burgundy and Aquitaine were close allies of theirs. However, anti-British sentiment in north France has caused Burgundy to drift to the Dutch instead.

New World
Russian America Company
Tarascan Empire
Quiché
Incan Empire

Colonial Powers
Union of Scandinavia
United Netherlands
United Kingdom of Great Britain
Kingdom of Aquitaine
Kingdom of Portugal
Kingdom of Spain
Most Serene Republic of Venice

Other European Nations
Kingdom of Burgundy (Kingdom of the French)
Swiss Confederacy
Union of Hanover
Kingdom of Brandenburg
Kingdom of Bohemia
Holy Roman Empire
Papal States
Kingdom of Hungary
Kingdom of Poland-Lithuania
Kingdom of Finland
Kingdom of Romania
Empire of Bulgaria
[Eastern] Roman Empire (Byzantine Empire)
Empire of All Russias
Kingdom of Georgia

Middle East and Africa
Ottoman Empire
Sultanate of Egypt
Sultanate of Sennar
Kingdom of Abyssinia
Union of Hejaz
Kurdistan
Zand Shahdom of Persia
Sultanate of Zanzibar
Kingdom of Kanem-Bornu
Sultanate of Timbuktu

India
Sultanate of Lahore
Sultanate of Delhi
Kingdom of Rajputana
Kingdom of Mysore
Kingdom of Nepal
Kingdom of Sikkim
Kingdom of Bhutan

East and Southeast Asia
Tokugawa Shogunate of Japan
Qing Empire of China
Kingdom of Ayutthaya
Konbaung Empire of Burma
Empire of Dai Viet
Sultanate of Brunei

 

[Disenfrancised]

Looks nice, love the none standard colours, one very minor point stands out to me though (weird thing to pick up on) - the Andes are hard to cross, the majority of the Spanish coming into Chile came down the Pacific coast from New Spain, thus I don't think that Aquitinian Chile should be that developed by 1750 *shrug*.

 

[Cuivienen]

I had accidentally uploaded an old version of the map. The new version is up now.

I don't know enough about the settlement of Chile to say whether that would be the case or not. I may change it.

 

[Israelite9191]

My one point is the lack of the recent geographic changes. Otherwise, I love this map, I absolutely addore it!

One question, is the Russian American Company part of Russia in the manner of the British East India Company, a dependency of Russia, or an independent nation?

 

[ThomAnder]

I have a question! Is the suez built already? if not i can't imagine how venice can have possession so far east.

 

[Israelite9191]

Same way that the British, Dutch, et al had posessions that far east and farther.

 

[das]

About Rome, its survival for so long was unlikely enough as it was, and mostly caused by several surprisingly good monarchs fighting against the general decay (most importantly Diocletian, ofcourse). Not sure about railroads; I am extremelly sceptical about an industrial revolution in Ancient Rome, it simply had no obvious use for it. Also, I repeat that its problems were also those of stagnation and decline; to survive it would have needed very sweeping reforms, and to force these it needed a very bad shock. Even then, all that happened in OTL, and it wasn't enough.

they had kept their frontiers intact.

WHICH frontiers exactly?

Same way that the British, Dutch, et al had posessions that far east and farther.

By using Venice's numerous Atlantic ports, in other words.

In any case, they would probably have built the Suez Canal in such a situation, but even without it infiltration of the Red Sea isn't impossible, and after that it is comparatively easy.

The PoD is likely to be somewhen in the 15th century... Not sure.

Also, Zaragoza is the Spanish capital on purpose, right?

 

[Symphony D.]

Even then, all that happened in OTL, and it wasn't enough.

Admittedly, Roman history isn't my strongest point, but there was a very strange problem with Roman Generals in the former years not following the established pattern of killing the weak and corrupt ruling Emperor, taking the title for themselves, consolidating power, and going off to slay the barbarian hordes. Instead they just continued doing their jobs under some moron. I've heard them referred to as the "Emperors Who Weren't."

When you toss that sort of lack of ambition on top of the lead poisoning and the weak rulers, stagnation, so forth, things tend to go down the tubes. Now, if a few of them had simply said "Psh, I can do a better job than this loon!" I think the situation could've been reversed. All it takes is one or two rather determined individuals in the right places at the wrong times.

Anyway, regarding technology; the Romans were a fairly crafty people, even if a fairly good percentage of their innovation was absorbed or pooled, rather than just created from scratch. I don't imagine they would see the obvious benefits of technology, no, unless something made them see it. Something like the Black Death would've been rather handy (and I mean the Ebola/Anthrax-like theories, not the Bubonic Plague theory), killing off all the slaves, knocking out a good portion of the nobility, putting the fear of God back in the Empire and getting it to start taking things seriously again. Interesting, since Rome was highly urbanized for its day, it has the added benefit of keeping the barbarians out while all this is going on, because if they invade they'll all just contract the disease too and likewise die (especially with something like a two-week gestation period, allowing them plenty of time to go home after their raids, spread it amongst their villages, and depopulate Germania and so forth).

It would take a certain confluence of events, but the world has seen far stranger.

 

[das]

All it takes is one or two rather determined individuals in the right places at the wrong times.

Again, that is precisely what happened on several occassions in OTL, and it prolonged Rome's existance - but the fact that it still fell in the end proves that this was simply not enough. A different approach is needed.

As for plagues, I will remind you that Rome did have lots and lots of these (not as bad as the Black Death - but that might have had something to do with superior hygiene to that of medieval Europe (and yes, I know that medieval European hygiene tends to be unfairly underrated; nevertheless, it was worse than the Roman one)). That also did not prove sufficient.

The old Roman Empire was simply too rotten; nevertheless, Byzantine experience had shown that with competent leadership something could be salvaged. One topic of particular interest to me is a possible "barbarian revival" of Rome; the Lombards I have already done, but having recently read up on Visigoths I had discovered that indeed they had the best-developed concept of an "Empire" and the grandest imperial ambitions (not to mention considerable Latin influence due to the surviving Roman populations in Iberia); perhaps with some better leaders they might have rebuilt the Western Roman Empire, at least partially.

Another idea is a Byzantine-style Roman revival; Britannia, Gallia and Hispannia might be lost, but Italia and Dalmatia could have been retained by a better emperor; and from there the Romans might gradually regain lost lands. North Africa... then Iberia in alliance with the Franks... Then Gallia - in alliance with the various tribes further east from the Frankish realms... And then, forceful reunion with the Eastern Roman Empire is also not out of question during one of its many rebellions and crises. A different question is how long will this reestablished Rome last; I'm afraid that sooner or later, it will fall again, or disintegrate like the OTL HRE. Still, this way it might at least be extended to 1000 AD.

 

[Cuivienen]

I have a question! Is the suez built already? if not i can't imagine how venice can have possession so far east.

It is not built. However, the Venetians, ever masters of ingenuity, have a very efficient conveyance system between the Nile Delta and the Red Sea that allows goods to be transferred quickly from one sea to another. It took a while after the conquest of Alexandria and the Sinai for the Venetians to develop a Red Sea fleet, but they have one now (and have had one for maybe 100 years), and the weakness of the Ottomans and other Muslim nations has allowed them to flourish. While there are certainly plans for a canal, they have often been dismissed as unfeasible by the operators of the over land transportation system.

Yes, Zaragoza is the Spanish capital on purpose. Spain is more Aragonese and less Castilian than OTL, thus the greater Mediterranean influence (Genoa, Libya) and lack of New World colonies.

 

[Cuivienen]

My one point is the lack of the recent geographic changes. Otherwise, I love this map, I absolutely addore it!

One question, is the Russian American Company part of Russia in the manner of the British East India Company, a dependency of Russia, or an independent nation?

Much like the British East India Company, though, given the difficulty in communication, it has far more autonomy.

 

[das]

That would require a less damaging Black Death; actually, that might make sense as a PoD. I recall it being surprisingly weak (by comparison) in Poland. Maybe if we could make it wither out faster in Eastern Europe, the strenghthening of Aragon and Hungary, at least, would make more sense.