Alternate History Thread IV: The Sequel

[das]

das probably already knows the PoD.

I sort of know I know it but can't remember what it was exactly by now.

And it does have "something to do with Napoleon".

That narrows it down further, but I still can't for the life of me remember which one is it. That's what I get for posting PoDs in a batch.

 

[Cannae]

Is there some OTL timeline that goes into depth about the events from 1000 BCE to 300 CE?

 

[das]

Ahem, he already said it has to do with Napoleon.

 

[ThomAnder]

Napoleon stayed in Ottoman Empire? (Since egypt remains part of OE)

 

[Thlayli]

There seem like a variety of options. Napoleon dies at the Battle of the Pyramids, Napoleon fails to recapture Toulon and/or dies, Napoleon attacks Britain with his armies instead of beginning the Campaign of 1805...and dies.

Alternatively, some sort of mixup at the Congress of Vienna. It seems like France's slightly larger territorial concessions are similar to what they were before the Hundred Days, and more got revoked...but I'm not positive. So, Napoleon retires to Elba, and dies.

 

[Dachs]

There seem like a variety of options. Napoleon dies at the Battle of the Pyramids,

Nope. There wasn't much chance of that anyway - a somewhat odd divergence. Killing him off at Lodi or something else in 1796 seems more promising, or at least realistic.

Napoleon fails to recapture Toulon and/or dies,

Uh-uh.

Napoleon attacks Britain with his armies instead of beginning the Campaign of 1805...and dies.

How exactly was he supposed to do that when there's a little ditch in his way called the English Channel?

Alternatively, some sort of mixup at the Congress of Vienna. It seems like France's slightly larger territorial concessions are similar to what they were before the Hundred Days, and more got revoked...but I'm not positive. So, Napoleon retires to Elba, and dies.

Napoleon does not retire to Elba. He sure as hell doesn't die of old age or anything like that.

Napoleon stayed in Ottoman Empire? (Since egypt remains part of OE)

No, that's a second-order timeline effect, mainly because the Ottoman Empire is a British client state. Besides, at this juncture Egypt was more like autonomous anyway in OTL.

That narrows it down further, but I still can't for the life of me remember which one is it. That's what I get for posting PoDs in a batch.

What you get? Tsk tsk.

 

[Symphony D.]

We know that the bubonic plague began in North China, was hypothetically carried by Mongol tribes to Genoan Crimea, and the rest is history. However, if the plague had this theoretical 99% mortality rate from its' inception, Chinese would die in droves, and the Central Asian outbreak would be too self-destructive to allow any infected population to get to the West. At best, the Russian principalities would be moderately affected.

Rather simplistic interpretation of disease theory, and assumptive that it was in fact bubonic plague that was behind the Black Death (which is debatable; a large number of conspicuous divergences from the modern disease present themselves).

The main reason Black Death was so lethal was it had a long incubation period (about two weeks), not just because of its mortality rate; it had time to spread and infect a large population.

You'd need something that had a high mortality rate and a fast incubation period in order to kill off high numbers of people and possibly limit spread. It'd be sort of like a viral Dr. Device. Of course, that might very well keep it from going as far as desired.

What you'd really want is something like super-Ebola with probably a quarter to half the incubation period (2.5 to 5 days) and a higher lethality.

In any case, most of Asia is quite worthless to the Europeans if not populated.

This is pretty much true.

On the other hand, however, four areas are likely to survive a massive epidemic in Asia, simply due to transit time: Japan, Taiwan, the Philippines, and Indonesia around Sumatra and Java. The remanents of Asia will likely fall to them (probably Japan, given they are the most advanced of the lot, and once the disease has died off [unless it's Anthrax or something, if everybody's dead, it goes too], maintaining an isolationist policy doesn't make sense; disgraced Daimyo and Ronin have somewhere else to go).

Arab traders in East Africa will probably also make a stab at either setting up localized rule, or returning to various points throughout the Indian once the epidemic winds down.

I imagine between Russian states going for North Asia, Arabic-African ones gor South Asia, Europeans for West Asia, and possibly Japanese for East Asia, you would have an interesting grab for the center of the continent.

 

[Thlayli]

You're right on the simplicity...my only hope was to take whatever strain of virus was used in the Years of Rice and Salt timeline and channel it through East Asia instead.

A super-Ebola *would* be nice. In that case, starting it from Central Africa and having Arab traders carry it northwards though Egypt and the Middle East (and into India, via Zanzibar and Yemen) would be the optimal idea...though a longer incubation period would have to be engineered for that to work. In that case, it would be difficult to keep the disease from getting into Spain, so I guess we'll have to hope that the Straits are kept clear until Morocco is picked clean.

 

[Symphony D.]

Super-Ebola is to my mind a generic term for a hemorrhagic fever, since they tend to have similar symptoms if wildly varying severities. They can originate virtually anywhere you want where there's contact between humans and (usually) primates. Indochinese origin point would solve transmission to both China and India handily.

 

[Dachs]

Huh. Well, I guess Thlayli was close enough - we skip Trafalgar altogether with some more favorable French winds and Napoleon gets to ship the Grande Armee across to Britain in the summer of 1805. This, of course, leads straight into the War of the Third Coalition......I can give more detail on other developments if it is so desired.

Meanwhile, got another one for y'all. This is from 1909.

 

[das]

Napoleon does not retire to Elba. He sure as hell doesn't die of old age or anything like that.

Does he live forever, then?

As to the 1909 map, hard to say anything definite from what we have, though if it is also based on one of my PoDs then I think I know which one.

By the way, after you carve up the Ottoman Empire enough times it just gets old. I guess there are only so many ways to carve up a Turkey, or something.

 

[Dachs]

Does he live forever, then?

Naw, he pulls a Pyrrhus of Epirus and gets hit by a roof tile in the midst of a burning London.

As to the 1909 map, hard to say anything definite from what we have, though if it is also based on one of my PoDs then I think I know which one.

You had better.

 

[das]

Obviously.

 

[Dachs]

Yeah, I've got a bit of time right here and am currently working on mapping out your PoDs-of-the-Day from earlier this year.

Question, for the Cavaignac map, should Frankfurt be a capital of Germany the same as Berlin?

EDIT: ...eh, I'm too lazy. Also, I do have this one idea for a TL, to be posted later when I have everything fleshed out.

 

[Thlayli]

For years to come, Corsicans would wear headgear in major cities.

It seems like there's a major dearth of plausible Industrial Revolution (or post) mapped timelines that have powers different from the Franco-British staples we've come to know and love.

The proposed NES2 VII Guess the PoD map was intriguing, but as I recall we never hammered down the specific PoD. All I remember was that it was Byzanto-Slavic, early medieval, with a lot of ethnic weirdness.

 

[bombshoo]

Tamerlane chooses to pursue and whipe out the Ottomans instead of retreating back and/or Tamerlane conquers China. I've thought of both these PoDs before but couldnt play them out right or I don't know if they've been done. Anyone have any insight? I don't know if the Byzantine Empire was salvagable at this time (Maybe under the Trabizond Empire?) but could the Latin Empire have been revived or it's successors strengthend enough to last to modern times?

 

[silver 2039]

Tamerlane chooses to pursue and whipe out the Ottomans instead of retreating back and/or Tamerlane conquers China. I've thought of both these PoDs before but couldnt play them out right or I don't know if they've been done. Anyone have any insight? I don't know if the Byzantine Empire was salvagable at this time (Maybe under the Trabizond Empire?) but could the Latin Empire have been revived or it's successors strengthend enough to last to modern times?

Have you seen this?

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=64987&perpage=20&display=&pagenumber=1

The Old Empires PTW & C3C By Sarevok

What If Tamerlane Had an Heir? A Legitimate, Strong Heir who took over the Mongols after he died in 1405? It Happened and the new Great Khan, Nayuk chose that instead of advancing to China, they should advance into Anatolia against Osman's Rising. Although the Ottomans managed to defeat the Mongols and drive them back to Persia where they would remain for the coming centuries, the Mongols had unexpectedly given hope to, instead of terror to all: The Byzantines of Constantinople.

The Byzantines had spent the years the Ottomans and Mongolia fought wisely, building up a third wall to add to the double walled city, but this wall was a new innovation to defend against a new weapon: Bombards. By 1453, when Mehmed II assaulted Constantinople, his Jannisary's and Bombards were routed by a heroic defense and Mehmed II died during the struggle. A treaty following made peace with the turks and allowed them to pass through Byzantine territory so long as they were independent. The treaty was never threatened until a new monarch rose to the throne: Suleyman I. in 1520, He forced the Byzantines back to their fortress city and bypassed them while his forces stormed into the Balkans but were finally stopped at Vienna.

In Western Europe, Charles V had built up his great empire and had badly Beaten up the Germans of Luther. He then decided to give up instead of both his thrones, just the HRE's Crown. He then Made the Netherlands a independent state, but governed by Spain. There was never any dissent there, and so the Netherlands matured together with Spain to make a Grand Alliance Between Spain, Netherlands, Austria, and Portugal.

Many wars followed, and the world saw the decline of Spain, and the rise of England and France. despite the setbacks, Spain managed to keep ahold of New Spain, and like the Netherlands, Mexico became a 'governed' Ally to Spain. Portugal Also managed to keep Brazil, but deteriorated rapidly to a decrepid state. Perhaps the biggest event following the Napolenic Wars was the 'Reconquest' age when after 4 Centuries of Overlordship, the Byzantine Empire declared war on Ottoman Turkey in 1834. Internal struggles brought Ottoman Strength down, while the Byzantines had much like their Roman predecessors, and advantage of technology, equipping their army with the first true
Rifles. The Ottomans were rudely ejected out of Europe and the
Byzantnes Seized both Bursa in Anatolia, but also seized control of Italy and unified it as a great power. Under the Byzantines, Italy became an industrialized and unified society which Italy did not become until much later in time.

In Scandinavia, the Danish kings had unified Denmark, Sweden, and Norway into a confederation and Allied State in 1868. Perhaps their biggest worry lay not with Russia, but with the increasing power of Germany, But it decided to stay neutral in international affairs.

Colonial warfare also was a very interesting aspect and vital to the period. The Byzantines managed to defeat the Ethiopians in 1896, and made then a 'governed' Ally. Perhaps the biggest shock to the world in colonial warfare however was in South Africa. The Zulu empire had expanded and apparently threatened the British to the point that the British invaded in 1879. The Zulu's, Under Ceshtwayo however had made a secret ally: the Byzantines. The Byzantines gave the Zulu's Rifles and Ammunition to defeat their colonial rival which the Zulu's did with ease and then quickly overran all of South Africa. The Britsh, accepting the Zulu Victory, signed an Alliance with them and helped them Industrialize.

The world had been arming up in the past 3 decades, and had signed many Alliances when an event shook the world...

In June of 1914, the Heir to the Austrian throne was Assassinated by a Serbian. The Austrians prepared war against Serbia only to find that they were earning the anger of Russia. At this time of Crisis, the world is on the brink of war, a war where the old empires of Byzantine, Norse, Zulu, and Mongol are all at stake...

 

[Dachs]

Tamerlane chooses to pursue and whipe out the Ottomans instead of retreating back and/or Tamerlane conquers China. I've thought of both these PoDs before but couldnt play them out right or I don't know if they've been done. Anyone have any insight? I don't know if the Byzantine Empire was salvagable at this time (Maybe under the Trabizond Empire?) but could the Latin Empire have been revived or it's successors strengthend enough to last to modern times?

First of all, the Latin Empire was an abomination and doesn't deserve to survive even if the PoD is before 1261. Secondly, there are of course major problems with the temporal paradox of something that has been dead for a century and a half "surviving". In any event, Timur's motivations (as I've been told before) really weren't geared towards smashing the Ottomans any more than he did anyway, because the war didn't start until Bayezid Yilderim ArrogancePants tried to get tribute from the wrong vassals.

However, if we drag the Turks into a significantly longer civil war, with Musa perhaps securing an alliance with Suleyman to stave off Mehmed I's invasion and creating a stalemate, then the Eastern Roman Empire does have somewhat more of a chance for skulduggery and playing the two sides against each other. Manuel II was certainly good at that. But frankly, it wouldn't have mattered in the long run, because after the reigns of Ioann V and Ioann VI Cantacuzene the Empire was screwed anyway.

Also, silver, that timeline looks decidedly...silly. Why exactly do the Romans hold out against the Turks for hundreds of years? Why the hell is Carlos I giving up his most profitable province and a great springboard to attack England before any hint of revolt? Why are the Romans hijacking revolution in Italy when they can just pound away at the Turks some more in Anatolia, especially when Italy is already the province of French and Habsburg interventions anyway? (Although that one might make some limited sense, I can't see why the Italian states don't unify themselves as puppets to either France or the Austrians, instead of chafing under yet another foreign ruler who will probably lose Italy very quickly to the ire of France and/or the Austrians, who are much closer.) Why are the Romans giving arms to the Zulus to antagonize the British in a colonial field that's pretty far away from the Romans' own territories and interests when the British can shut down the Roman Empire almost instantly by sending fleets into the Bosphorus and Hellespont?

...and why are the first true rifles appearing in 1834?

 

[Disenfrancised]

Also, silver, that timeline is decidedly silly.

Corrected that for you there . In fact its one of those which isn't really even worth the time pointing out everything wrong.

 

[Dachs]

That's not very nice.

How about this: I've been wondering as to how to keep the Lombards alive without the decidedly messy situation that we got in das' "By a Single Decision" with that weird Muslim France. We could simply have Desiderius not go after Rome, which removes the immediate cause, but that probably won't fix the problem of that menacing Golden Age Frankish Empire on the northern border. Instead, we need to destabilize the Franks at some point after Tours. Perhaps Grifo could get a larger portion of the Empire, thus perhaps engendering further multi-sided conflict between the three brothers (Pepin III and Carloman being the other two) similar to the Ottoman Interregnum that we just talked about. Pepin won't be in any kind of position to intervene in Italy, and might even lose the civil war, giving way to a successor (either non-monkish Carloman or Grifo) who, not having been supported by the Papacy, will not be of a mind to help His Holiness back by attacking the Lombards. Heck, if the Lombards themselves intervene in the civil war and help either Grifo or Carloman win, then they might even secure an alliance with the Franks, allowing both of them to concentrate on other affairs - the Lombards will want to control all of Italy, and the Franks will be wanting to beat up on the Saxons and Arabs. The much less confusing Lombard succession will help them out in the long run (look at how the Carolingian Empire disintegrated after Charlemagne's death) and when the two Empires turn against each other again, the Lombards could even puppet the Franks or subordinate them in some other fashion.

This is a nice alternative to an Ostrogothic early Italian unification and Renaissance, anyway, and it doesn't shaft Italy so badly as OTL. The Lombards will drive out the Romans, who either will waste more men on the Italian problem or will turn east and north in greater numbers, which could give us either an earlier death at the hands of the Caliphate (decidedly unlikely what with the state the Caliphate is in - unable, for the most part, to mount offensive operations - after the Battle of the Zab) or an increased ability to take advantage of said Caliphate's self-destruction. The Lombards will be able to take advantage of this too, in Ifriqiya anyway...

What do you think? Too silly? Too formulaic?