Alternate History Thread III

Perhaps. I think a more interesting PoD would be one retooling Hitler. Supposing his father hadn't been an abusive alcoholic, he hadn't been messed up quite so badly psychologically, and hadn't become so anti-semetic, but still possessed all his other traits, he wouldn't be quite so despisable, nor prone to such greivous disasters of judgment...
 
Technically I doubt that it is possible to remove his negative traits without affecting the positive ones - they are quite interlinked...

A Hitlercide althist that I personally am interested in is a surprisingly underdone one with him dying on die Nacht der langen Messer; I recall that being a possibility on several occassions.
 
Been influenced by my actions in NES2 VI, have you das? I never see Byzantine-rebirth althists anywhere, and suddenly...;)

Excellent work; I am a little perterbed about the rapid American collapse in Virginia (I live here, for God's sake!) but other than that, not bad at all! I shall print it out on someone else's printer!

In other news, look for classical althist work sometime in the next few weeks as I compile all of my hastily jotted notes and type them up.
 
You wouldn't believe me, but it IS a coincidence. ;) Based on a slightly-changed version of the OTL "Graecian project".

Why do you people keep thinking that the collapse was easy? :p I suppose I could've written about it in more detail and generally made this more obvious, but still, the heaviest fighting in the American theatre was in Virginia! Where elsewhere there were a few skirmishes and minor battles at the least, here there were bitterly-contested major battles where, for a variety of reasons including luck on, if not the first, then the second place, the French won and even then took heavy casualties (by colonial standards).

That wasn't a rapid collapse at all. In the future, someone will write:
" "But tell me, uncle, why our men
Let Richmond burn, yet fought again
To drive the French away?
I hear it was a dreadful fight,
A bitter war, by day and night;
That's why we celebrate the might
Of Bedford field today."-

Yes, men were heroes in the past,
Not men like you, but on the last
The bravest in the field!
Their fate was hard, they bravely died,
And few came home by war untried.
We yielded Richmond, yet satisfied
It was God's will to yield..."


*wonders if anyone who isn't Gelion or Stormbringer will recognize it*
 
It burned AFTER it fell. ;)
 
All right, but question: why no major tactical overviews? I mean, there has to be at least one battle sometime in the Five Years' War that deserves a closer look! ;)

Question 2: Still slightly confused as to why George fled to Birmingham; isn't it basically a village in the 1770s?
 
a) Because you are not worthy - deal with it. :p Plus tactical battles aren't something I specialize in, as I said again and again. That's your speciality, if anything.
b) Because he didn't, the Parliament did. ;) And in the second half of the 18th century, Birmingham underwent very spectacular and rapid growth, sped up by the refugees fleeing from the southeast. Generally it was a city with great potential, and, very significantly, its very disadvantage - distance from the sea - now turned into an advantage as far as the Parliamentary leaders were concerned, as the French were predominant in the sea and it was feared that they might attack just about any coastal city. By the time the threat had disappeared and the war ended, Birmingham already became a very large city and indeed the British capital (i.e. all the necessary infrastructure was set up), so it was decided to keep it there.
 
A question on a different matter. What if the Roman Empire had endured? I'm not quite sure how. Perhaps if the legions didn't bring the Antonine plague back with them... that would have left them stronger and perhaps able to hold back the waves of "barbarians".

Do you reckon that we could somehow see Rome survive up to... say... 1700? And how do you think it would affect the world/map?

I'm toying a bit with the idea, but I'm not sure it's going to make a good nes, so it is mainly to satisfy my own curiosity ;)
 
If Rome somehow were to survive, and also develop an extremely early industrial revolution (plague kills slaves, say, somebody notices Hero of Alexandria's stuff), I think it would be exceedingly difficult at that point for it to go down. Legions with trains > barbarian hordes.
 
Symphony D. said:
If Rome somehow were to survive, and also develop an extremely early industrial revolution (plague kills slaves, say, somebody notices Hero of Alexandria's stuff), I think it would be exceedingly difficult at that point for it to go down. Legions with trains > barbarian hordes.

Rather unlikly, even with Hero's steam engine you need revolutions in materials technology and mining to get the raw materials, and many, many advances to built stuff out of them. If Hero's stuff is developed I can see an industrail revolution after 500 years or longer. besides I think its rather more likly that the Romans would embark on conquests to get new slaves than any other option ;).
 
All the basic components for a steam engine were there at the time; pistons, cranks, rotating shafts, so forth. Admittedly, they wouldn't have been very good, and due to the rather poor quality of material, would have been prone to failure fairly often, but it isn't too wise to underestimate the Classical era; their knowledge of hydraulics and mechanical assemblies was quite beyond anything Europe would see again for at least a millennium. If anybody could do it super early, it would be them, though it would take rather some luck and it would likely not manifest itself quite the way we are accustomed to.

Also, could you get on AIM?
 
Yeah, the Romans did have steam technology, but it was just never utilised. Technological progress was slow, most likely due to the slaves meaning there wasn't really any incentive to improving many things in order to cut down on expenses.

On some other matter. Do we have any good timelines floating around suitable for an 1700-50 start? With three threads and so many posts it'll take forever to have a good look and you guys probably remember all the spares you have posted ;)
 
), I think it would be exceedingly difficult at that point for it to go down. Legions with trains > barbarian hordes.

Legions even without trains can easily beat most barbarian hordes. Rome died of old age first and foremost; it stagnated, grew weak and corrupt, and eventually just collapsed; the barbarians just had to finish it off...

IMHO its not easy for a Roman Empire to survive at all, except in a manner similar to the Byzantine one (i.e. falling back to just Italy and some surrounding territories, and holding out there, becoming just one of the many European great powers). Otherwise it could only win a century or two...
 
No. All that would be needed is a more permanent government structure. China held around for a few thousand years; the only problem with Rome was that infrastructure collapsed completely, which was much due to barbarian raids.
 
And if the infrastructure is far more advanced, and thus the Empire is easier to manage because communication and travel is far more rapid and thus control is easier to maintain, the structure as a whole becomes far more durable...
 
Exactly. But I don't see it expanding much, just holding on to the general Western Mediterranean area.
 
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..?
 
If a Roman alchemist manages to figure out that the pipes of the complex Roman water system are filled with lead, which is poisoning the minds of the upper echelon of leadership...

Not to mention sugar of lead, which the Romans used as a sweetener. Have someone discover by chance that lead poisoning is causing lethargy and stupidity among the elites, and, well...you'd improve Rome's chances of survival significantly.
 
Back
Top Bottom