das
Regeneration In Process
In any case, I don't have the time for this right now; will have more time for this and anything else in this forum after the 19th or earlier.
Alternate History Thread IV: The Sequel
- Thread starter Dachs
- Start date
It certainly would have been a lot easier whenever they had any actual fighting, but the primary obstacle to capturing Jerusalem was logistical. I don't see how that would be made any easier by having a larger number of men...
Having said that, I'm sure there are a few places that have seen speculation on this point. For an...interesting take on it, see the Unholy Roman Empire.
Thlayli
Le Pétit Prince
Thlayli
Le Pétit Prince
Micro-update: Ruleset draft is done. Map is 65% done. Starting stats. Preview thread isn't far away.
flyingchicken
Deity
- Joined
- Feb 3, 2007
- Messages
- 3,783
Finally, the restoration of this thread's rightful purpose.
I don't remember the official names of the countries offhand, and Az didn't list them, so you should name your countries explicitly or I'll continue to be lazy
thar you go.
Kraznaya
Princeps
Neither of those are the official names of the countries
Neither of those are the official names of the countries
Irrelevant. You can still tell which nations on the map I'm going to claim.
das
Regeneration In Process
Still busy, so here are two ancient Greek things to distract you.
Ancient Greek Thing the First: What Would Alcibiades Do If Given AnSecond Umpteenth Chance?
You can't keep a bad man down. Suppose he escaped that day and reached the Persian court, or, perhaps more interestingly, went into hiding, I suspect he might very well have done a lot within the intrigue-driven Persian political system, perhaps moreso than many other famous Greeks who did fine there too. All in all, I suspect he would've ended up taking an active part in court or (again, perhaps more interestingly) provincial intrigues, possibly using any old contacts he might still have to assemble a mercenary army and so maybe becoming an independent force. He would've probably failed in the end, but many things in those little Persian civil wars were up to chance, since by this time nobody really had a strong and secure support base and on the other hand most people involved (meaning both local elites and Persian satraps) were fairly pragmatic and in some cases willing to win over and accept former enemies.
One option that particularly catches my fancy is Alcibiades somehow ending up in Egypt, coming into the trust of the satrap or one of the nomarchs, waiting for/arranging an uprising and taking charge of a Greek mercenary army as described above (pretty easy in Egypt, anyway), then overthrowing the new pharaoh and taking Egypt for himself. Then there are many other things he could do (or get chased further out into the ecumene trying), although I suppose he won't have that much time left by then even without taking the hazards of the profession into account.
Ancient Greek Thing the Second: Lysander. And, more broadly, the question of whether Spartan hegemony could've been preserved by means of a coup d'etat, imposition of some kind of (monarchic?) tyranny and radical reforms. I agree that it would've been difficult; the only way to create a lasting Spartan Empire was to thoroughly and ruthlessly destroy, marginalise or remove many key Spartan institutions (what is good for a polis is not good for an empire, and Lysander seems to have understood that full well, as had some other Spartans), which could only have been accomplished fast enough by force (the natural evolution that happened in OTL was both too long and mostly harmful), hence the need for a coup d'etat. There were, to my knowledge, several conspiracies in the late 5th-early 4th centuries BC, but a conspiracy led by Lysander (whether there really was one in OTL or not) would seem to have the highest chances for success and then maybe he could at least combine his de facto personal hegemony over many conquered cities with tyranny over Sparta. Not sure as to what he could do after that; apart from the inevitable clash with the ephors and the gerousia, legalising money and using his wealth to bribe the poorer Spartans, and introducing full private property on land and establishing Spartan colonies in strategic positions and subjugated cities to house any suddenly pauperised Spartans come to mind.
Ancient Greek Thing the First: What Would Alcibiades Do If Given An
You can't keep a bad man down. Suppose he escaped that day and reached the Persian court, or, perhaps more interestingly, went into hiding, I suspect he might very well have done a lot within the intrigue-driven Persian political system, perhaps moreso than many other famous Greeks who did fine there too. All in all, I suspect he would've ended up taking an active part in court or (again, perhaps more interestingly) provincial intrigues, possibly using any old contacts he might still have to assemble a mercenary army and so maybe becoming an independent force. He would've probably failed in the end, but many things in those little Persian civil wars were up to chance, since by this time nobody really had a strong and secure support base and on the other hand most people involved (meaning both local elites and Persian satraps) were fairly pragmatic and in some cases willing to win over and accept former enemies.
One option that particularly catches my fancy is Alcibiades somehow ending up in Egypt, coming into the trust of the satrap or one of the nomarchs, waiting for/arranging an uprising and taking charge of a Greek mercenary army as described above (pretty easy in Egypt, anyway), then overthrowing the new pharaoh and taking Egypt for himself. Then there are many other things he could do (or get chased further out into the ecumene trying), although I suppose he won't have that much time left by then even without taking the hazards of the profession into account.
Ancient Greek Thing the Second: Lysander. And, more broadly, the question of whether Spartan hegemony could've been preserved by means of a coup d'etat, imposition of some kind of (monarchic?) tyranny and radical reforms. I agree that it would've been difficult; the only way to create a lasting Spartan Empire was to thoroughly and ruthlessly destroy, marginalise or remove many key Spartan institutions (what is good for a polis is not good for an empire, and Lysander seems to have understood that full well, as had some other Spartans), which could only have been accomplished fast enough by force (the natural evolution that happened in OTL was both too long and mostly harmful), hence the need for a coup d'etat. There were, to my knowledge, several conspiracies in the late 5th-early 4th centuries BC, but a conspiracy led by Lysander (whether there really was one in OTL or not) would seem to have the highest chances for success and then maybe he could at least combine his de facto personal hegemony over many conquered cities with tyranny over Sparta. Not sure as to what he could do after that; apart from the inevitable clash with the ephors and the gerousia, legalising money and using his wealth to bribe the poorer Spartans, and introducing full private property on land and establishing Spartan colonies in strategic positions and subjugated cities to house any suddenly pauperised Spartans come to mind.
Oooh, Greeks.
I like the Lysandros thing better than Alkibiades, because I'm still not wholly convinced of his - Alkibiades' - overall competence. I suppose that makes him better for the adventurer lifestyle anyway.
Independent Hellenoegyptian kingdom is always something to shoot for, of course, whatever its longevity might have been.
But Lysandros is cool. Kleomenes-but-a-little-earlier sounds great to me, of course. Could you be a bit clearer on "guarantee of private property" - is this basically the reform bill that Agis IV had the other Lysandros introduce, or is it something different entirely? Also, what'd be the end of this whole experiment - establishing a kind of Spartan hegemony over southern, central, and Ionian Greece? With a view towards...
I like the Lysandros thing better than Alkibiades, because I'm still not wholly convinced of his - Alkibiades' - overall competence. I suppose that makes him better for the adventurer lifestyle anyway.
Independent Hellenoegyptian kingdom is always something to shoot for, of course, whatever its longevity might have been.But Lysandros is cool. Kleomenes-but-a-little-earlier sounds great to me, of course.
Could you be a bit clearer on "guarantee of private property" - is this basically the reform bill that Agis IV had the other Lysandros introduce, or is it something different entirely? Also, what'd be the end of this whole experiment - establishing a kind of Spartan hegemony over southern, central, and Ionian Greece? With a view towards...
das
Regeneration In Process
Alcibiades was more unpredictable than competent, it's what makes him such a treasure-trove for us althistorians.
By guaranteeing private property on land, I mean streamlining the historical evolution of Spartan landed property. The restrictions on gifting and willing, (and later buying and selling) lands died away slowly enough in the subsequent period, but the idea of removing those restrictions was around in Lysander's time.
The goal is, ofcourse, the Spartan Empire in central and southern Greece, Ionia and beyond. Sicily and Asia Minor (see Agesilaus and the creation of Spartan cavalry; cavalry would be the vital prerequisite for any successful "land wars in Asia") beckon. The increasingly uppity Spartan generals of the immediately following period (again, see the reign of Agesilaus) establishing Asian dynasties would be a welcome bonus.
By guaranteeing private property on land, I mean streamlining the historical evolution of Spartan landed property. The restrictions on gifting and willing, (and later buying and selling) lands died away slowly enough in the subsequent period, but the idea of removing those restrictions was around in Lysander's time.
The goal is, ofcourse, the Spartan Empire in central and southern Greece, Ionia and beyond. Sicily and Asia Minor (see Agesilaus and the creation of Spartan cavalry; cavalry would be the vital prerequisite for any successful "land wars in Asia") beckon. The increasingly uppity Spartan generals of the immediately following period (again, see the reign of Agesilaus) establishing Asian dynasties would be a welcome bonus.
What about the Persians? Would losing all or part of Asia Minor possibly help them at all, in terms of a geopolitical shock to spur them into action? I think southern Greece - Taras, natch - would also be a great target for Spartan generals to go rogue...
Is there any plausible way to combine these two schemes?
Is there any plausible way to combine these two schemes?Possible, I suppose. The problem with intervention is dual. First off, Britain is the deciding factor in intervention in the first two years because Napoleon was too timid at that time to do anything without the clear support of the Brits. Hell, that's part of the reason he blundered into the abrogation of the Russo-French Dual Alliance in 1863...he couldn't not tell his ally off... And Britain is unlikely to do much. Seward I think is one of the best unsung diplomats in history and he kept things working extremely well in Anglo-American relations. I doubt even without Albert's alteration to the British note that the Trent affair could have escalated too much, and in 1862 John Slidell's repeated failures in contacting Lord Russell are not encouraging at all. While the effect of the abolitionist sentiments of the British proletarians has been vastly overrated, the British Government simply weren't interested in even declaring the Federal blockade illicit at the time, much less in a war. It's been said many times, of course, that a diplomatic attack on the validity of the Union blockade would have cast a shadow of doubt on Britain's own use of the device.
Anyhow, ceteris paribus in the actual fortunes of war between the Union and the Confederacy, British intervention is unlikely before Gettysburg, Tullahoma, and Vicksburg. Napoleonic intervention in favor of the South was more likely from a geopolitical viewpoint and certainly from a personal one, because Napoleon was both more sympathetic to the Southern cause than were even his own citizens (much less the British) and had a good reason to see a compliant Confederacy on his Mexican sockpuppet's northern border as opposed to an angry and powerful Union. But the problems with him were the aforementioned fear of acting without Britain before Gettysburg made British intervention a nonissue, and after Gettysburg he was simply worried that any French aid to the South wouldn't have had an effect.
Purely in terms of me being extraordinarily interested in wacky diplomatic/geostrategic schemes, what does anybody think of Seward's plan to forestall American Civil War in 1860-1 by launching an attack on the Spanish Empire over the Spanish intervention in Santo Domingo? It might get Southerners on-side over the issue of annexing Cuba, and even as early as the 1860s (before the failure of a war with Chile and the rather embarrassing result of the attempt to recolonize Santo Domingo) the Spanish were an easy mark.
I completely skipped over this and thought my post simply was ignored. I do like your 2nd option. What if we had Seward elected President instead of Lincoln (for whatever reason) and the USA does go through with annexing Cuba and occupying Santo Domingo....With Cuba already having slavery, I don't see Seward trying to remove it initially and we might end up with the Southerners willing to reach a compromise. If the issue were put off long enough of course, there might eventually be strong enough abolitionist sentiments in other countries that we would see the South having to dissolve it without war. Another question I suppose would be if the war were put off how would the Napoleon III react once the USA shows it is willing to enforce the Monroe Doctrine.
Well, you don't need to elect Seward...I dunno if he could have acquired the support of both the radicals and the moderates in the Republican Party with Greeley opposing him and with his political history. Lincoln would be fine - he just has to give the thumbs-up. I mostly agree with the later course of events.
Abaddon
Deity
Sorry for the bump, but linkage to next thread:
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=322735
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=322735
