Alternate History Thread III

So now we're not even allowed to speculate on the Boxer Rebellion because it was baaad? I guess I should be offended about people speculating about the Confederacy winning :p

I doubt it would have mattered much though, China was rather irrelevent then and a Boxer regime would have just placed it further into isolation and backwardness, only to lead to eventually more revolution. Maybe a slightly more unified (iron fist and whatnot) China against Japan, but not an overly popular regime after a certain length of time would have certainly meant more rebellions.
 
So now we're not even allowed to speculate on the Boxer Rebellion because it was baaad? I guess I should be offended about people speculating about the Confederacy winning :p

I doubt it would have mattered much though, China was rather irrelevent then and a Boxer regime would have just placed it further into isolation and backwardness, only to lead to eventually more revolution. Maybe a slightly more unified (iron fist and whatnot) China against Japan, but not an overly popular regime after a certain length of time would have certainly meant more rebellions.

It's because the Boxer Rebellion succeeding has no relevant effect what so ever upon improving China. The fact that they believed their magic could defend themselves from bullets is a sure symbol of their VAST and GREAT intellect :p And really, the Boxers were seen by many as even worst then the Qing, after all, the Qing didn't go around killing babies or people for having contact with Europeans and the like. :(

It's also because when all is sad and done, the Boxer Rebellion succeeding is just a pathetic alt-history! ;)
 
Hmmm how about an alt-history where the Christian's won the Crusade? I came up with that idea awhile ago, but never really thought too deeply into it until I saw this thread... anybody interested in developing it?
 
It's because the Boxer Rebellion succeeding has no relevant effect what so ever upon improving China. The fact that they believed their magic could defend themselves from bullets is a sure symbol of their VAST and GREAT intellect :p And really, the Boxers were seen by many as even worst then the Qing, after all, the Qing didn't go around killing babies or people for having contact with Europeans and the like. :(

It's also because when all is sad and done, the Boxer Rebellion succeeding is just a pathetic alt-history! ;)

You basically repeated what I said foo :p

I'm not saying it's a great idea, but not...sad by any means. Not when we have a dozen "Hitler wins" ideas on these threads.

@kalthazar, what do you mean by win? They did capture Jerusalem and Acre...I dunno how many more men they really could have sent, or what battles they could have won. I think the pullout from there was inevitable. Das probably knows more though.
 
@kalthazar, what do you mean by win? They did capture Jerusalem and Acre...I dunno how many more men they really could have sent, or what battles they could have won. I think the pullout from there was inevitable. Das probably knows more though.

wha?

no seriously did I say this recently? :s

EDIT: gah Krimzon
 
My bad, sorry, it looked alike and both of your avatars are black.
 
Thanks for the praise and for the Sino-Seal approval.

It has been a long time since we have seen a good Chinese alt-history.

Indeed. Just while researching this I kept bumping into other great Chinese and nearby PoDs. And that's just in the early 17th century!

Better yet, what if the Boxer Rebellion succeeded?

Gah.

a) Insane Panda was being sarcastic.
b) What everyone else said is more-or-less correct.

Most importantly, though, what do you mean under a Boxer victory? IMHO it wasn't possible as such, and noone that mattered even intended for the mto win. They did have some plans to slaughter all Europeans and blow up all railroads and telegraphs, but seriously, had Europeans not stopped them the Qing would have, after using them to wipe out some political opposition. Basically they were a reactionary version of the Red Guards, and about as viable. Only, they stood no real chance against any serious European opposition... An interesting opportunity might've appeared had the rebellion occured during an earlier world war, I suppose.

Still, a far better Late Qing althist would be a victory in the Sino-Japanese War, say had the Qing acquired Russian support. Then again, the British would probably have supported Japan more openly in that case... Now that would've been a nice little war, don't you think? ;)

You know, I kinda see it hard to imagine Longwudi, being such an elderly man, go on making such widespread reforms. Of course, stranger things have happened in China.

I should've paid more attention to the birth dates while researching and brainstorming, but as you have said, stranger things have happened, and there are precedents for strong elderly rulers. Plus he has help, ofcourse.

I must say the "Civil War" itself was very interesting, reminded me of historical text of various other times of disorder during China's vast history.

Very glad to hear it.

What if Communism never rose in Russia/China?

Technically it rose in Germany, but you probably mean rising to actual power. :p Really that's not a very good althistorical question at all; it is far better to post some more specific PoD. There are billions of billions of ways for the communist movements to never come to power in Russia and/or China, and the exact consequences depend on why exactly they would fail in this.

Still, presuming an early 20th century divergence, I'd imagine that the strongest and most influential communist movements would still be in Europe; not sure if any of them would come to power, ofcourse. It all depends on comparatively little details.

Hmmm how about an alt-history where the Christian's won the Crusade?

Once again, how the hell are they supposed to win? As Azale said, they took over the Holy Land, so they won. Holding out there would've been hard, but actually not impossible; it all verged on the control of Egypt (which could be either a base for Muslim flank attacks on the Kingdom of Jerusalem or a more-or-less secured Christian rear base, from which to reinforce and supply the Holy Land), and the Crusaders actually understood that, but ultimately failed for many reasons. Still, with the right leader and some luck, it is feasible at least. How about the Seventh Crusade?
 
I'm writing something right now with a PoD of Mustafa Kemal's death at Gallipoli (silly moron led a charge against entrenched Brits; in OTL, he got insanely lucky), and subsequent Megali Idea loveliness and a slightly different First World War.

Other interesting idea: has anyone looked into the possible introduction of monothelitism at the beginning of the 600s, and say that the Monophysite East accepted it as a whole? I mean, it's a bit of a long shot - but it makes that century look a lot more interesting and different.

The whole Crusading business ought never have happened - a success at Damascus sounds like a betrayal of the actual players in the scheme: Conrad and Louis were just too bloody stupid to do anything intelligent like win a siege against an opponent they shouldn't have been fighting anyway. Damascus was one of the only possible Muslim allies in the region against Nur ed-Din, and giving them up was pretty bloody stupid. Winning at that siege probably just means that Nur ed-Din just gets the place in the end anyway, IMHO. (Do I have the right Siege of Damascus?)

Oh yeah, hello again.
 
Other interesting idea: has anyone looked into the possible introduction of monothelitism at the beginning of the 600s, and say that the Monophysite East accepted it as a whole? I mean, it's a bit of a long shot - but it makes that century look a lot more interesting and different.

The entire early Christian church period defies all logic. By all rights Arianism, Gnosticism, Marcionism or any of a host of "heretical" beliefs should have beaten out "orthodoxy." In fact, what we now call orthodox Christianity as a whole is a strange creature that should have died at innumerable points throughout its history.
 
Perhaps. If Thierry of Alsace dies, perhaps choking on roast boar on the eve of the expedition, with less bickering the local crusader lords might push for an immediate attack on the city, which would probably succeed, leading to the whole bloody pillage/mad chaos/destruction of the city.

After that, Nur ad-Din would probably retake the city, but at serious cost.

Another option is that the host at Jerusalem decide to ride in force to Edessa as they had originally planned, and from there attacks Mosul, killing Nur ed-Din in the process, as well as his upstart nephew.
 
Personally, a Crusader success at the Siege of Damascus seems the most promising PoD for me.

Not at all. Syria would have been far more difficult to conquer and hold on to than Egypt, while offering a considerably less crucial advantage.

I'm writing something right now with a PoD of Mustafa Kemal's death at Gallipoli (silly moron led a charge against entrenched Brits; in OTL, he got insanely lucky), and subsequent Megali Idea loveliness and a slightly different First World War.

Would it be enough for a victory at Galipoli? That would make for far more decisive changes in WWI, though ofcourse Kemal's leadership was far from the only thing that doomed the whole expedition.

By all rights Arianism, Gnosticism, Marcionism or any of a host of "heretical" beliefs should have beaten out "orthodoxy." In fact, what we now call orthodox Christianity as a whole is a strange creature that should have died at innumerable points throughout its history.

Not necessarily; it was quite well-balanced and fitted towards the Roman needs, which already increased the chances of its survival considerably. Conversely, if we break up the Roman Empire more thoroughly, an early serious schism would be more likely; Syria and Egypt will almost definitely become Monophysite in such a scenario (while Arianism would gain a more lasting prominence in Europe). Though its not quite the same thing as what Dachspmg were talking about. Not sure if Gnosticism was viable.
 
Would it be enough for a victory at Galipoli? That would make for far more decisive changes in WWI, though ofcourse Kemal's leadership was far from the only thing that doomed the whole expedition.

From what I read Gaplipoli was more the fault of mismanagement on the British side of things, in the commanding officers ability to communicate what they wanted correctly to their subordinates.

That can be fixed quite easily by appointing a different and more confident and less Gentlemanly Commander.
 
Wouldn't a far better PoD to outright win Gallipoli (if that is one's intent) be if the Royal Navy hadn't been such ponces and turned back after having basically run the Ottoman sea defenses in the Dardanelles out of ammo, thus rendering Gallipoli unncessary or possibly more successful in the first place?
 
It wouldn't have. It wouldn't have lasted through the Russian Revolution.
 
Perhaps if the Canadian government hadn't been so cheap and had tried to outbid the US. :p

Regardless, it was bound to lose it to one of the North American nations during any time of serious instability, a situation which Russia has had several of.
 
What if Russia kept Alaska, up to the Cold War?

I'm really not sure why would it want to, although if kept it may play a part in Alexander III's grand Pacific plan. Only a minor part, though, and unless we keep Alexander III alive for longer as well - which would be redundant, I think - it would be of no effect. Now, it might get interesting if Nicholas II doesn't sell it before the Russo-Japanese War, as the Japanese may well try to secure it; or, if they're smart, they would probably try to trick the Americans into doing so for them. Roosevelt was quite in favour of an alliance with Japan after all, and had Nicholas II been more stubborn the Americans certainly may have intervenned now that there is also some land to grab, how ever nominal.

If the Russians keep Alaska beyond the Revolution, it would probably be captured by the Canadians. A less likely development would be the creation of a "White Guard" state, but even then it would be an American economic dependency, likely to eventually become a state (a bit like Texas, I guess) or a puppet. Now, a revolution in Alaska may also occur, but for that see above; the Canadians would just move in and take it over, at Churchil's behest.

Perhaps if the Canadian government hadn't been so cheap and had tried to outbid the US.

That wouldn't be hard, but for Alexander II it wasn't as much a matter of looking for the highest bidder (otherwise he wouldn't have accepted such a ridicilously low price) as preventing a British capture of Alaska in a hypothetic future war. By selling Alaska he got rid of an essentially useless faraway province, denied it to the British who COULD have found a use for it and improved relations with the USA (he did other things to that effect as well, with his moral support for Lincoln and so forth). Money didn't enter into it (because frankly the Americans themselves didn't want it neither, so any serious sum would probably have tipped the balance in the favour of Seward's enemies).

Regardless, it was bound to lose it to one of the North American nations during any time of serious instability, a situation which Russia has had several of.

Not necessarily; I'm not sure if anyone would care enough about it, unless there is risk of it becoming a Soviet base.
 
Would it be enough for a victory at Galipoli? That would make for far more decisive changes in WWI, though ofcourse Kemal's leadership was far from the only thing that doomed the whole expedition.
Who says that the outcome of Gallipoli changes? ;) That would just be the same old boring rehash that Canadian, Australian, and New Zealander historians have been arguing about forever.

Sym, I too would love to make de Robeck a non-sissy, but having lost six warships disabled and sunk in the course of a few minutes does sort of shock one into not pushing on ahead. He was no Nelson, that's for sure. I mean, even if the RN and French ships had gotten into the Propontis, there's no guarantee that they would be able to reach the Golden Horn and put Constantinople under their guns, or even that the Ottomans would capitulate at that juncture instead of ignoring them and toughing things out.

About the ground commander at Gallipoli: maybe if they had had Allenby perhaps the Brits could have gained ground, but there were all sorts of screwups all throughout the campaign, from the top levels (Hamilton) on down to battalion and company commanders. Several times the Turks were bloody lucky (in most of Kemal's efforts, especially); often, the British just didn't have fortune on their side. Their inability to maneuver later on due to the extremely small size of the operational area played a large role as well.

I'm still working - if school and other concerns don't multiply, I ought to have product this weekend.
 
Ahem, Texas was not an economic dependent of the USA ;)
 
Back
Top Bottom