Alternate History Thread III
- Thread starter Luckymoose
- Start date
Thanks all for the ACW TL stuff - I suppose not really much nitpicking is in order, because I just barely got through the PoD - which was Meade's decision on the night of July 2-3 to counterattack following Pickett's Charge. 
Spoilers, Thlayli, will unfortunately have to wait. The War is just about finished; Europe and Japan need tending to, though, before I post the next installment.
Spoilers, Thlayli, will unfortunately have to wait. The War is just about finished; Europe and Japan need tending to, though, before I post the next installment.
Ok I've had a go at a timeline (currently have it thought out in my head, still not sure how to work it out). This is the first part; please critique:
PoD; Greek vicotry over Cathaginians and Estrucans at Alalia in 540 BC. Securing the Greeks various Carthaginian Island terrorties and the Straits of Gibralta, the securing of monpoloistic trade in the North Western Med; blockade of straits to ensure greek monpoly over trade of Tin from Britian.
Carthage isolated to Malta, sicilian and African holdings. Estrucans lose out on trade, and are weakened by indemities. Strengthening of Greek cities (well, wealthier), also slightly wealthier Greek City states in Greece.
Subsequent defeats of the Estrucans in following decades truly reduces Estrucan power (Navies are expensive!)
Gauls migrationary tracks bring them into conflict with the Estrucans in approx 400 BC, weaker resitance gives a quick collapse of the Estrucans and easy victories and pillage for the Gauls means that the raids and settlements are further south than in OTL which
Brings them into conflict with the Romans; Rome is sacked not once, but thrice; severly weakened, the conflicts with the Samnites goes much differently.
343 BC: In the 1st Samnite war; the Samnites defeat the Romans in series of battles, ensuring that no compromise peace is made (Capua was joined to Rome as well as follows), and that the Romans recognise the Samnite union with the Sidci is recongnised as well as Capua being ceded to the Samnites.
326 BC: The 2nd Samnite war results in a compromise peace which sorts out minor terretorial issues and matters of infulence, the Romans were unable to block of Samnite routes of expansion as OTL.
298 BC: 3rd Samnite war; results in defeat of Romans at hands of Samnites, various colonies and cities ceded to Samnite infulence or control, Romans weakened.
280 BC: Samnites growing infulence in southern Italy forces it into conflict with Tarentum; who invite King Pyrrhus of Epirus. King Pyrrhus accepts and comes to Tarentum with a large army and war elephants. However the wealth and decadence of Tarentum has been heard of, and Pyrrhus enters the city and then deposes the current, decadent rulers, confiscating their estates and utilising the Gold for the war effort. Additional Mercanaries are hired; and Auxillary units from nearby peoples are utilised.
In subsequent battles Pyrrhus conquors the Samnites, losses are minimal as the armies extra size and the Samnites weaker armies put up less resitance.
By 275 BC Samnites are defeated and Pyrrhus is victorious. The Romans who had opportunistically taken some territory off the Samnites, when Pyrrhus demands these terrotries, the Romans refuse and war ensues; the Romans secure an alliance with Carthage (or what remains), who make attacks into Sicily and sends a force to support the Romans.
In 273 BC Rome is conquored after a costly battle on the Appian way; Rome unable to produce another sizeable army is destroyed. Pyrrhus then turns south and reconquors parts of Sicily in 272 BC.
In 269 BC the remaining Carthage holdings in sicily are captured, and with the dominance of Pyrrhus a Kingdom of Italy and Sicily is formed (name? any ideas?).
In 267 BC the remaining Carthage lands are conquored and incorperated into Phyrrhus's realm and By 262 the reamining Greek colonies in the Western Med have been conquored.
******
In the West Med; Alexander took 3 years longer, due to having to knock some heads together in Greece (slightly stronger City States). This results in more direct rule in Greece for the Macadonic state (although not everywhere); however Persian internal problems sped up Alexanders conquests somewhat, and he was more or less on track near the end. (he died with similar results for the dissolution of the Empire).
Critiques? Still have some ways to go;
Anyone willing to give a name to Pyrrhus' realm? Also I DO note that the time period is unlikly to through up the same peoples, however I've simply deceided that similar personalities will be thrown up and just used them....
PoD; Greek vicotry over Cathaginians and Estrucans at Alalia in 540 BC. Securing the Greeks various Carthaginian Island terrorties and the Straits of Gibralta, the securing of monpoloistic trade in the North Western Med; blockade of straits to ensure greek monpoly over trade of Tin from Britian.
Carthage isolated to Malta, sicilian and African holdings. Estrucans lose out on trade, and are weakened by indemities. Strengthening of Greek cities (well, wealthier), also slightly wealthier Greek City states in Greece.
Subsequent defeats of the Estrucans in following decades truly reduces Estrucan power (Navies are expensive!)
Gauls migrationary tracks bring them into conflict with the Estrucans in approx 400 BC, weaker resitance gives a quick collapse of the Estrucans and easy victories and pillage for the Gauls means that the raids and settlements are further south than in OTL which
Brings them into conflict with the Romans; Rome is sacked not once, but thrice; severly weakened, the conflicts with the Samnites goes much differently.
343 BC: In the 1st Samnite war; the Samnites defeat the Romans in series of battles, ensuring that no compromise peace is made (Capua was joined to Rome as well as follows), and that the Romans recognise the Samnite union with the Sidci is recongnised as well as Capua being ceded to the Samnites.
326 BC: The 2nd Samnite war results in a compromise peace which sorts out minor terretorial issues and matters of infulence, the Romans were unable to block of Samnite routes of expansion as OTL.
298 BC: 3rd Samnite war; results in defeat of Romans at hands of Samnites, various colonies and cities ceded to Samnite infulence or control, Romans weakened.
280 BC: Samnites growing infulence in southern Italy forces it into conflict with Tarentum; who invite King Pyrrhus of Epirus. King Pyrrhus accepts and comes to Tarentum with a large army and war elephants. However the wealth and decadence of Tarentum has been heard of, and Pyrrhus enters the city and then deposes the current, decadent rulers, confiscating their estates and utilising the Gold for the war effort. Additional Mercanaries are hired; and Auxillary units from nearby peoples are utilised.
In subsequent battles Pyrrhus conquors the Samnites, losses are minimal as the armies extra size and the Samnites weaker armies put up less resitance.
By 275 BC Samnites are defeated and Pyrrhus is victorious. The Romans who had opportunistically taken some territory off the Samnites, when Pyrrhus demands these terrotries, the Romans refuse and war ensues; the Romans secure an alliance with Carthage (or what remains), who make attacks into Sicily and sends a force to support the Romans.
In 273 BC Rome is conquored after a costly battle on the Appian way; Rome unable to produce another sizeable army is destroyed. Pyrrhus then turns south and reconquors parts of Sicily in 272 BC.
In 269 BC the remaining Carthage holdings in sicily are captured, and with the dominance of Pyrrhus a Kingdom of Italy and Sicily is formed (name? any ideas?).
In 267 BC the remaining Carthage lands are conquored and incorperated into Phyrrhus's realm and By 262 the reamining Greek colonies in the Western Med have been conquored.
******
In the West Med; Alexander took 3 years longer, due to having to knock some heads together in Greece (slightly stronger City States). This results in more direct rule in Greece for the Macadonic state (although not everywhere); however Persian internal problems sped up Alexanders conquests somewhat, and he was more or less on track near the end. (he died with similar results for the dissolution of the Empire).
Critiques? Still have some ways to go;
Anyone willing to give a name to Pyrrhus' realm? Also I DO note that the time period is unlikly to through up the same peoples, however I've simply deceided that similar personalities will be thrown up and just used them....
North King
blech
- Joined
- Jan 2, 2004
- Messages
- 18,165
It sounds interesting; reminds me of the time I speculated about if Pyrrhus had actually been a good general and conquered Italy. I can't see why the empire shouldn't just be called Pyrrhic.
North King
blech
- Joined
- Jan 2, 2004
- Messages
- 18,165
Well yes, but you asked specifically about the name of his realm.
I do look forward to seeing more of this.
Oruc
Reactionary
Pyrrhus is awesome
I somehow doubt that such an empire would survive after Pyrrhus's death. Greeks were fiercely xenophobic and patriotic, meaning that such a state would be bound to succumb to constant revolts from Greek and non-Greek alike. The effects would be quite interesting either way, though.
Thlayli
Le Pétit Prince
Oruc
Reactionary
His death sure wasn't. Stunned by a roof tile, then disembowled.
Thats what you think, I think its a great death.
das
Regeneration In Process
It's better than my death at any rate.
Interesting timeline, Kal'thzar, though one would think there would be more changes than that over the centuries. Still, this works too.
I suppose that central Italian lands may be untenable (for different reasons than stated - Greeks have ruled multiethnic empires in OTL, you know; rather, the problem would be that of northern Italy being all too exposed to attacks from the north even in OTL), but southern Italy is itself Greek, and generally near to Epirus. That much should survive for a few centuries, I believe.
Anyhow, I'm curious about the Gauls in this world. They did show signs of developing a more organised civilisation in OTL prior to Roman conquest; there is no threat of that in this world, and they have also had time to plunder northern Italy quite a while, and that presumably would have rubbed off them in some regard (both because of the enrichment of the plunderers and because of the cultural influences). Might we see the rise of a Gaelic civilisation? And possibly Celto-Etruscan kingdoms in northern Italy?
Interesting timeline, Kal'thzar, though one would think there would be more changes than that over the centuries. Still, this works too.
I suppose that central Italian lands may be untenable (for different reasons than stated - Greeks have ruled multiethnic empires in OTL, you know; rather, the problem would be that of northern Italy being all too exposed to attacks from the north even in OTL), but southern Italy is itself Greek, and generally near to Epirus. That much should survive for a few centuries, I believe.
Anyhow, I'm curious about the Gauls in this world. They did show signs of developing a more organised civilisation in OTL prior to Roman conquest; there is no threat of that in this world, and they have also had time to plunder northern Italy quite a while, and that presumably would have rubbed off them in some regard (both because of the enrichment of the plunderers and because of the cultural influences). Might we see the rise of a Gaelic civilisation? And possibly Celto-Etruscan kingdoms in northern Italy?
the major change that i wanted to look at really was a loss of Roman infulence over such a large area, the lack of institutions for government in said areas (that was initially centralised and then decentrailised). And the spread of Christianity.
I needed to make the timeline ALMOST converge back with ours to get some of these figures (set up correct pre-conditions etc for the right enviroment).
There WILL however be some states in Spain/Gaul and nothen Italy, still deceiding upon it, and need to do more reaserch in the Gauls (its a bit sparse).
I needed to make the timeline ALMOST converge back with ours to get some of these figures
(set up correct pre-conditions etc for the right enviroment).There WILL however be some states in Spain/Gaul and nothen Italy, still deceiding upon it, and need to do more reaserch in the Gauls (its a bit sparse
).
das
Regeneration In Process
Actually, why would there be no such institutions? They're bound to develop eventually (and in many, even most, cases already have).
The Strategos
Thanatos
- Joined
- Jul 21, 2002
- Messages
- 1,175
The problems with Pyrrhus founding an empire
1) Pyrrhus lacked persistence. He never learned how to consolidate or even hold on to territory gained. Land won in the west one campaign season would be lost the next as he fought in the south.
2) Independence of Greek city-states. In OTL the city-states only reluctantly sent Pyrrhus aid, and that's after inviting him over in the first place. Their lack of cooperation is one reason he went to Sicily. If in TTL he is even more tyranical (see overthrow of Tarentum), they would, out of fear of his growing power, abandon him even quicker. Then, he would have to conquer these cities one by one (in OTL he didn't have a seige train in his army by the way). I'd imagine it would be similar to Hannibal's invasion of Italy, master of any battlefield, but the small force to land ratio and desire to avoid the hemorriging of men that sieges would cause would mean that his attack is a glorified raid, not a serious conquest threat.
1) Pyrrhus lacked persistence. He never learned how to consolidate or even hold on to territory gained. Land won in the west one campaign season would be lost the next as he fought in the south.
2) Independence of Greek city-states. In OTL the city-states only reluctantly sent Pyrrhus aid, and that's after inviting him over in the first place. Their lack of cooperation is one reason he went to Sicily. If in TTL he is even more tyranical (see overthrow of Tarentum), they would, out of fear of his growing power, abandon him even quicker. Then, he would have to conquer these cities one by one (in OTL he didn't have a seige train in his army by the way). I'd imagine it would be similar to Hannibal's invasion of Italy, master of any battlefield, but the small force to land ratio and desire to avoid the hemorriging of men that sieges would cause would mean that his attack is a glorified raid, not a serious conquest threat.
Ahh but in this timeline he certainly WILL have a siege train, as he deceided to be slightly more tyrannical about Tarentum (due to a larger decedant reputation). And the various city states are much more intimidated by Pyrrhus due to a lack of other powers in the region. (In OTL they allied with Carthage to prevent Pyrrhus forming a Kingdom).
IF there is rebellion, he can merely quell it on a rather extreme scale, make an object lesson, and the cities will bide their time until the time is ripe, no point rebelling if Pyrrhus is willing to go not eye for eye, but eye for the head.
IF there is rebellion, he can merely quell it on a rather extreme scale, make an object lesson, and the cities will bide their time until the time is ripe, no point rebelling if Pyrrhus is willing to go not eye for eye, but eye for the head.
Strategos, IMHO personality conflicts aren't really an issue when the PoD is before Pyrrhos' birth. However, the other problem, that of independent Greek city-states, is very intractable. The "lack of other powers" seems to me to indicate an Italian League of city-states against the power of Pyrrhos just like the Delian League against Persia in OTL would occur - no Greek likes being a puppet of anyone. Since Carthage is still extant, they would also make a good ally for the states of southern Italy...those alliances have a bad tendency to crop up when a power is getting close to hegemonic, after all, and since Carthage seems slightly weaker in this TL, they aren't as much of a threat as Pyrrhos is. The lack of a siege train isn't something that can be explained away by psychology, though - it really is a major pain to lug all those machines through bad countryside, especially without Roman roads to make things easier. If the choice were between winning battles but not cities and having the chance to win cities at the cost of battles due to the sheer difficulty of lugging a siege train, most military commanders of that day and later would choose winning battles for the intimidation factor. Note also that it isn't so easy for a hoplite or phalangite to carry around sieging equipment like it was for the Romans, because of differences in armor and marching styles.
However, the other problem, that of independent Greek city-states, is very intractable. The "lack of other powers" seems to me to indicate an Italian League of city-states against the power of Pyrrhos just like the Delian League against Persia in OTL would occur - no Greek likes being a puppet of anyone. Since Carthage is still extant, they would also make a good ally for the states of southern Italy...those alliances have a bad tendency to crop up when a power is getting close to hegemonic, after all, and since Carthage seems slightly weaker in this TL, they aren't as much of a threat as Pyrrhos is. The lack of a siege train isn't something that can be explained away by psychology, though - it really is a major pain to lug all those machines through bad countryside, especially without Roman roads to make things easier. If the choice were between winning battles but not cities and having the chance to win cities at the cost of battles due to the sheer difficulty of lugging a siege train, most military commanders of that day and later would choose winning battles for the intimidation factor. Note also that it isn't so easy for a hoplite or phalangite to carry around sieging equipment like it was for the Romans, because of differences in armor and marching styles.Any possible solutions? I mean I plan to have the Empire pretty much explode anyways.
Also the auxillaries at the time, could they be trusted to haul around siege equipment in good order?
EDIT: Otherwise I'll just keep it to the cities being placated by some more tyrannical actions of Pyrrhus.
Also the auxillaries at the time, could they be trusted to haul around siege equipment in good order?
EDIT: Otherwise I'll just keep it to the cities being placated by some more tyrannical actions of Pyrrhus.
das
Regeneration In Process
Must we start another one (rhetorical question, I know)? Anyhow, when you do, don't forget to add links to previous threads.
