Alternate History Thread IV: The Sequel

[Dachs]

I wasn't trying to disprove it. Actually, goes more to the opposite. You can never have too much evidence.

 

[Thorgrimm]

Those mountains and hellish deserts are quite large you know.

So you are saying there was no contact or trade across those deserts and mountains? Also, if those same features are so impossible to cross How could Cao Wei prevent the Shu from possible contact.

Buhahahhaha. a) the Han had almost no influence in india and b) you talk about conquering the Gupta as if they weren't a state with a greater population than rome (and more concentrated to boot), an advance war machine with great seige craft and a steel bow technology that could easily move to counter any reasonable roman 'pila' technology that could be developed in the short timespan by secret researchers. Plus why do the Romans want india - they have quite enough to bring under control already.

A. yes you are correct and that will be changed.

B,. So you are saying the Guptas could not be overcome? Hmm, according to the history I have read In the 480's the Hephthalite king Toramana broke through the Gupta defenses in the northwest, and much of the empire was overrun by the Huna by 500. The empire disintegrated under the attacks of Toramana and his successor, Mihirakula; the Huna conquered several provinces of the empire, including Malwa, Gujarat, and Thanesar, broke away under the rule of local dynasties. It appears from inscriptions that the Guptas, although their power was much diminished, continued to resist the Huna, and allied with the independent kingdoms to drive the Huna from most of northern India by the 530's. The succession of the sixth-century Guptas is not entirely clear, but the last recognized ruler of the dynasty's main line was Vishnugupta, reigning from 540 to 550.

And from what I have read the Hunna we Afghani tribes who were eventually overcome by around 565 by a coalition of Sassanians and Western Turks. That is indicitive that contrary to your claims, the Gupta can be overcome.

As for those steel bows lets see what history has to say about them.

India historically has had a prominent reputation for its steel weapons. One of these was the steel bow. Due to its high tensility, the steel bow was capable of long range and penetration of exceptionally thick armor. These were less common weapons than the bamboo design and found in the hands of noblemen rather than in the ranks. Archers were frequently protected by infantry equipped with shields, javelins, and longswords.

So it seems they were found only with the noblemen, making the majority of the ranks using the fine bamboo long bow using bamboo cane arrows with metal heads. So it seems another obstacle is overcome.

Also, have you ever heard of the manuballista; The Manuballista was a handheld version of the traditional Ballista. This new version was made entirely of iron, which conferred greater power to the weapon.

Or the Roman repeating ballista called the polybolos; The Roman military, at one time in its history, also fielded 'repeating' ballistae, also known as a polybolos. Reconstruction and trials of such a weapon carried out in a BBC documentary 'What the Romans Did For Us' showed that they "were able to shoot eleven bolts a minute, which is almost four times the rate at which an ordinary ballista can be operated". They operate using a cam to pull the mensa (the place where the projectile travels on) backwards and the string along with it. At the rearmost position, the string is unlocked and propels the projectile forwards. The mensa is then pushed forward and pushes a bolt out of the magazine above it, and latches on to the string, all done with the rotating cam. The cycle then repeats.

So the Romans had their advanced weaponry also.

Now if you would stop and think, then compare to where the TL is and when the Guptas ruled you would see centuries would pass due to other problems that arise and keep the Romans busy.

This is what NK was talking about with 'double planet' with earth having such a large partner. Do you realise what vast and innumerbable effects this would have on the billion year history of this planet? For starters Earth would most likely be tidally locked to Dagger, and have all the continents clustered at the sub-Dagger point.

You are correct. I was incorrect in my estimations of size. The Terra - Pugio Caelum system has been rearranged to these figures:

                   Earth               Moon 
Mean diameter     12,742 km           3,476 km 
Volume         1.08321 x 1012 km3     2.199 x 1010 km3 
Mass           5.9736 x 1024 kg       7.349 x 1022 kg 
Mean density       5.515              3.342 
Surface gravity   9.78 m/s2           1.62 m/s2 
Escape velocity   11.2 km/s           2.38 km/s 
Visual albedo      0.367              0.12 
Visual magnitude   -3.86              +0.21

Hint: those were fantasy, as is yours - when you went asking for critism we assumed you wanted your one to be more realistic.

I was asking for constructive criticism along with suggestions for change. But right from the beginning there was only hostility, derision and scorn. Nothing constructive about that. So once, again, if you have some suggestions for change, by all means, suggest away.

The mountain routes to Burma are pretty difficult too, and jungle and disease soaked as well - not suitable for major goods transport until major developments had occured, and not route a state could project power (which is your 'reason' for them wanting to contact the magic Romans). Any southern chinese influence in india is going to be minor, and not in the form of armed interventions, so you can just ignore them altogether if you want...

Yes they are, but difficulty has never stopped diplomacy before.

There was no major goods traffic as you say. I stated merely a diplomatic mission to obtain the secret of fulminata. Nothing more. If I have done so please point it out.

Trying != Success you know - maybe the reason its not mentioned elsewhere is its abysmal failure?

Please read the article. It stated it had been there for at least a decade before abandonment in 9 AD due to being burnt down after the Varus disaster. That is not indicitive of 'abysmal failure' as you put it, but a act of war.

The best evidence for civilian settlement comes from Waldgrimes. Waldgrimes is located close to the headwaters of the Lahn River, east of the legionary base at Mainz. A forum was discovered during excavations at Waldgrimes. The forum stood at the center of Roman civic life and the presence of a forum shows that some Romanization was occurring. Not only was a forum discovered but other unmistakable sign of civilian settlement was discovered. Lead water pipes and a retail center have been unearthed.[17]

Considering that the Romans came from an urban society it is possible to see that they saw small Romanized towns developing and believed that Germany as a whole was becoming pacified and Romanized. This matches Dio’s statement that the Romans had control of some parts of the country but not others. Dio continues by writing that some of the German tribes were becoming romanized.

Yes, of course, that almost goes without saying. What seems to be the main complaint here is the disturbingly large number of butterflies involving extremely rapid technological progress in one country, combined with the virtually uncontrolled and unchecked expansion of said country into regions that would be at best difficult to take over. Besides, most of these timelines were developed with the intention to use them as settings for NESes,

The only real technology introduced is Gunpowder. Everything else is an extrapolation of what that one change would lead to. Heck, gunpowder is an extremely simple substance. It is not even a compound, being merely a mixture of potassium nitrate, common charcoal, and sulphur. Any blend of roughly equal proportions of sulphur and charcoal with from 40% to 75% of potassium nitrate --saltpeter-- will flash with considerable noise and may thus qualify to be called "gunpowder".

The Romans knew of saltpeter, had large deposits of sulfur in Scicily and used charcoal all the time. So it is quite possible for someone to stumble onto its discovery, as long as the required ingredients are available society. You all have shown the way I have described it is fanciful, but at the same time you refuse to admit it can even enter the realm of possibility. So by all means, suggest a new approach to the problem. After all, that is why I originally posted it here.

Hmm, thats probably why all the hostility. I thought this was a thread to discuss althists, but if it is for coming up with backgrounds for NES's, that would explain it. My bad.

but as soon as we hit the era of the Crisis of the Third Century Rome would be forced to relinquish Germania just like Dacia, although it would provide a handy buffer zone and possibly would lessen the impact of the invasions somewhat, giving us an overall richer Roman Empire as we go into the fourth century.

Lets look at the Crisis of the Third Century more closely.

Crisis of the Third Century (also known as the "Military Anarchy" or the "Imperial Crisis") is a commonly applied name for the crumbling and near collapse of the Roman Empire between 235 and 284 caused by three simultaneous crises: external invasion, internal civil war, and economic collapse.

Now lets break it down a bit.

1. External Invasion. With the inclusion of the new provinces the invasions are lessened and their impact is much reduced. I have addressed that with the Gothic attacks. And I had them break through the frontier ravaging the new provinces but leaving the core provinces untouched. So you do not have the Goths running amok in Moesia, pannonia, Dalmatia, Thracia or Greece like in OTL.

2. With the Romans still focused outward instead of inward there would be avenues for the glory and power seekers routes to power besides internal strife, especially with the adoption system I used. Then add there is no Sassinid support for Zenobia there would be even less desire to break off from the empire.

An invasion by a vast host of Goths was beaten back at the Battle of Naissus in 268. This victory was significant as the turning point of the crisis, when a series of tough energetic soldier emperors took power.

I just introduced it a bit earlier, which is not beyond the scope of Octavian's capability of implementing.

3.

Internally the empire faced runaway hyperinflation caused by years of coinage devaluation. This had started earlier under the Severan emperors who enlarged the army by one quarter and doubled the base pay. As each of the short-lived emperors took power they needed ways to raise money quickly to pay the military's "accession bonus" and the easiest way to do so was by simply cutting the silver in coins with less valuable metals. This had the predictable effect of causing runaway inflation and by the time Diocletian came to power the old coinage of the Roman Empire had nearly collapsed.

Without the short-lived emperors there is no need to debase the coinage to keep raising the pay to keep the legions loyal since a stable system of succession had been adopted.

One of the most profound and lasting effects of the Crisis of the Third Century was the disruption of Rome's extensive internal trade network. Ever since the Pax Romana, Imperial Rome's economy depended in large part on trade between the Mediterranean ports and over Rome’s extensive road system. With the Crisis of the Third Century, however, this vast trade network broke down. The widespread civil unrest made it no longer safe for merchants to travel as they once had, and the financial crisis that struck made exchange very difficult.

Dozens of formerly thriving cities, especially in the West, had been utterly ruined, their populations dispersed, and with the breakdown of the economic system most could not be rebuilt. Major towns, even Rome itself, now became surrounded by thick walls they had not needed for many centuries.

Without the ravaging of Gaul and the balkan provinces, the rise of Zenobia or the Gallic Empire to disrupt the internal Roman economy I believe there would be no such economic collapse.

But if you have any suggestion as to how I could improve it please suggest.

More rationally, while I agree that growth is key to survival, growth will eventually hit a snag. The Roman Empire already was quite overstretched; conquest of Persia and many other places besides would stretch further. You see, although growth is necessary, an empire set wholly around the Mediterranean was optimal, and even that had many problems. If you also try to control Persia and Arabia, and expand in many other regions, there would be a basic problem of communication, not to mention overstretchment of Roman resources, which were not infinite and were severely hurt by assorted social difficulties that had quite little to do with lack or existence of expansion (admittedly, if you have enough sufficiently dedicated emperors fortuitously placed along the timeline they should keep things running with occasional social reforms). But really, the problem of communication is much more severe.

You are quite correct they do hit a snag in growth and as I stated earlier in this post look at what the date is in the TL so far, and look to when the Guptas ruled. I did make a mistake in naming though, it should be the Kushans who are there first, but the Guptas Rome overcomes. So that will be rectified.

I believe the Crisis was not a fore destined series of events that have to occur. They along with most things can be avoided if rational reasons are given in a AltHist. So if you have any suggestions, please suggest.

Yes communications are the major snag in any nations expansion problems. As for Arabia, the Romans were already present in OTL up to the first cataract, so it is not much of a leap over into Arabia along the coasts. I would also expect the Romans to use water travel, river and ocean to keep in contact with their far flung territories.



Cheers, Thorgrimm

 

[Cannae]

No one has answered my question yet.

 

[flyingchicken]

My dull 2 cents:
@Thorgrimm

Though technically it is possible (having Rome and the Romans act almost as a hive mind, one in purpose for several centuries and nerver succumbing to corruption, corpulence, comfort and such), I believe that when dealing with NESers you cannot impose such leaps from what was historically possible because:

1) A lot of NESers are storytellers, and [I believe] it is a bad storyteller who does not know haw low a human can go or how comfortable a human can get or how emotional a human can become.

2) Some NESers have studied history, with its numerous examples and supportive examples, of how certain factors (like communications) affected states, for the sake of good NESes. Such a departure from the "baseline" that is history, such a departure from what was to be expected as based on various historical examples, would not be taken seriously.

3) Some NESers (at least I know I can't) cannot reconcile NESing and Civilization games because of realism issues as seen from #2, and your althist looks a lot like a Civilization game.

 

[~Darkening~]

Nope, never claimed it at all. please read the relevant post.

You're making alot of friends, you know ? And I did read the post- you're attempting to correct alex, the most annoying sinophile anyone will ever find.

 

[Cannae]

What would history be like if today's contints location was placed roughly like this.

 

[Thorgrimm]

You're making alot of friends, you know ? And I did read the post- you're attempting to correct alex, the most annoying sinophile anyone will ever find.

Yup, I see that. Good to know I have friends like this.

I was not trying to correct him only point out that according to my obsolete data, which I did not know at the time, these were the names I had listed. But as Alex, in his own charming way, pointed out it was obsolete and when I saw that I stood corrected and thanked him for his input.



Cheers, Thorgrimm

 

[The Strategos]

No one has answered my question yet.

Maybe no one has answered your question because to do so would require knowledge of climate, tides, terrain, etc., and even if one had that data, would require us to recreate history from the foundation of civilization until whenever you wanted us to stop, which is too much work for us to do for a project none of the people you are asking seem particularly interested in.

On the Roman Alt-History

Friends, Romans, countrymen, lend me your ears;
I come to bury the timeline, not to praise it;
The evil that timelines do lives after them through many posts,
The good is oft interred in the opening post,
So let it be with this timeline.​

Sorry, couldn’t resist, now I’ll be serious. As the only member of the Alt-historian Triumvirate (a position I just now made up to describe those who have posted multiple alternate histories in recent memory and includes das as Julius Caesar, dachspmg reprising Pompey Magnus, and myself holding down the lovable spot of dear Crassus) not to have commented on the timeline, I feel it is my duty to strike once more at the dead horse.

The crux of the problem, as I understand it, is a distinction between “possible” and “probable.” Throughout, it seems to me, Thorgrimm is arguing that is timeline is “possible,” while the forces array against him are arguing that it is not “probable,” though, of course, as any argument worth its salt, the use and misuse of language clouds this. The distinction may be subtle, but it is important. For example, it is possible to flip a coin 100 times and always gets heads, however, it is not probable. The hard-line conservatives which inhabit this thread enjoy their particular brand of alternative histories being “probable.” In other words, once they make their initial point-of-departure, they like showing how other changes that they make rest on that initial first change. Thorgrimm, in my opinion, however, is working with the opposite tact. That is, he is making an initial change (Teutoburg Forest ending up a victory) and adding additional changes that have no direct link with this first change (gunpowder being invented).

Because of the differences in technique, there has been a backlash, with both sides hurling imprecatory curses at each other. Thorgrimm believes that people need to acknowledge that it is within the realm of possibility that gunpowder could have been invented. The opposing side wants to press the point that it is not probable that gunpowder is invented that early (to name but one area of contention). One side shows that it is possible to flip a coin 100 times and always gets heads, the other side argues that you should not base anything on that fact because it is not a probable occurance.

Now, if Thorgrimm wants to move the argument from possibilities to probabilities, I will be willing to level quite a few criticisms. If he is content at only saying his timeline is only possible, then I have nothing further to say, for I tend to agree that his timeline is possible.

 

[Thorgrimm]

@ Strategos, thats all I was trying to imply is that it is possible. And I had begun to think that the crux may have been the definitions you described. I am content to say it is possible, and not very probable. But if you do have any suggestions please suggest them for improvement.


EDIT: All offending material removed.

 

[Cannae]

Maybe no one has answered your question because to do so would require knowledge of climate, tides, terrain, etc., and even if one had that data, would require us to recreate history from the foundation of civilization until whenever you wanted us to stop, which is too much work for us to do for a project none of the people you are asking seem particularly interested in.

It dosen't seem to be that much different than a non-earth pod to be honest.

 

[North King]

How in the heck did I turn earth into a double planet? Are you even reading the same timeline?

See another person's post. Apparently you need to look up the definition of a double planet.

CONSTRUCTIVE criticism is something completely different from what you have posted. From the beginning you, my friend, have done nothing but non-constructive criticism. I have said before if you have criticisms present them with helpful suggestions.

I started out by pointing out Romans were probably not the best candidates for discovering gunpowder. You reply with:

What it seems to me you dislike is the fact it diverges too much from your perception on how history should go. Well, I hate to tell you, but you cannot know all possible divergences in history that the Many Worlds Theory of Quantum Mechanics supposes. Read up on it sometime.

This is called lecturing, and it's rather arrogant of you to assume I've not heard about that "theory".

I'm perfectly willing to discuss anything constructively, but apparently you can't take criticism and must hide behind your shield of newness. So be it.

What you seem to forget is ALL AltHist is fantasy.

Get. A. Dictionary.

As for posting here, who died and made you god?

No one. I have never claimed lordship over this forum; nor will I ever. Nor have I declared jurisdiction over who may and may not post. That is simply not something I do. The most I have done is simply pointing out the absurdity of Rome discovering gunpowder, and explained why in later posts. After a while of you claiming to know every motivation I have, I snapped. Regardless of why you're on here, I'm not on an internet forum to exercise "power", so stop your projecting, and stop claiming to know what motivates everyone else.

 

[Thorgrimm]

See another person's post. Apparently you need to look up the definition of a double planet.

Dude you have some serious ego issues. Did you miss this part of my previous post?

You are correct. I was incorrect in my estimations of size. The Terra - Pugio Caelum system has been rearranged to these figures:

                   Earth               Moon 
Mean diameter     12,742 km           3,476 km 
Volume         1.08321 x 1012 km3     2.199 x 1010 km3 
Mass           5.9736 x 1024 kg       7.349 x 1022 kg 
Mean density       5.515              3.342 
Surface gravity   9.78 m/s2           1.62 m/s2 
Escape velocity   11.2 km/s           2.38 km/s 
Visual albedo      0.367              0.12 
Visual magnitude   -3.86              +0.21

And i think you need to refine your definition since the Earth - Moon system is considered a double planet to. My error was in my estimation of Luna's size, yours is of arrogance:

The Earth-Moon System
The moon is the earth's nearest neighbor in space. In addition to its proximity, the moon is also exceptional in that it is quite massive compared to the earth itself, the ratio of their masses being far larger than the similar ratios of other natural satellites to the planets they orbit (though that of Charon and the dwarf planet Pluto exceeds that of the moon and earth). For this reason, the earth-moon system is considered a double planet. It is the center of the earth-moon system, rather than the center of the earth itself, that describes an elliptical orbit around the sun in accordance with Kepler's laws. It is also more accurate to say that the earth and moon together revolve about their common center of mass, rather than saying that the moon revolves about the earth. This common center of mass lies beneath the earth's surface, about 3,000 mi (4800 km) from the earth's center.

This is called lecturing, and it's rather arrogant of you to assume I've not heard about that "theory".

I'm perfectly willing to discuss anything constructively, but apparently you can't take criticism and must hide behind your shield of newness. So be it.

Your continued actions deny that statement. I held out the gauntlet of peace you threw it back, well no one can say I did not try.

Get. A. Dictionary.

I have five, thanks anyway. But it seems you need one bud. I highlighted the relevant parts just in case you missed this like you did my correction of my Lunar sizing:

fan·ta·sy /ˈfæntəsi, -zi/ [fan-tuh-see, -zee] noun, plural -sies, verb, -sied, -sy·ing.
–noun

1. imagination, esp. when extravagant and unrestrained.
2. the forming of mental images, esp. wondrous or strange fancies; imaginative conceptualizing.
3. a mental image, esp. when unreal or fantastic; vision: a nightmare fantasy.
4. Psychology. an imagined or conjured up sequence fulfilling a psychological need; daydream.
5. a hallucination.
6. a supposition based on no solid foundation; visionary idea; illusion: dreams of Utopias and similar fantasies.
7. caprice; whim.
8. an ingenious or fanciful thought, design, or invention.
9. Also, fantasia. Literature. an imaginative or fanciful work, esp. one dealing with supernatural or unnatural events or characters: The stories of Poe are fantasies of horror.
10. Music. fantasia (def. 1).
–verb (used with object), verb (used without object) 11. to form mental images; imagine; fantasize.
12. Rare. to write or play fantasias.

Once again, ALL AltHists are a form of fantasy.

No one. I have never claimed lordship over this forum; nor will I ever. Nor have I declared jurisdiction over who may and may not post. That is simply not something I do. The most I have done is simply pointing out the absurdity of Rome discovering gunpowder, and explained why in later posts. After a while of you claiming to know every motivation I have, I snapped. Regardless of why you're on here, I'm not on an internet forum to exercise "power", so stop your projecting, and stop claiming to know what motivates everyone else.

Then you telling me to not post here was my imagination?

Now, it's all well and good that you post fantasy -- I frankly don't care, though I'd rather you didn't post it in the alternate history thread

Man I have one heck of a imagination if I can conjure that in reality. I never claimed to know what everybody's motivation was. Only you.

Now that we have once again traded barbs do you wish to continue this dance of words or would you like to discuss it like two adults? I am all for adult discussion as my last few posts have indicated.



Cheers, Thorgrimm

 

[North King]

Dude you have some serious ego issues.

See below.

Did you miss this part of my previous post?

And i think you need to refine your definition since the Earth - Moon system is considered a double planet to. My error was in my estimation of Luna's size, yours is of arrogance:

Yes, I am aware of that (nice quote from the Wiki article). Apparently you didn't get the point -- changing the gravity of the Moon massively changes Earth along with it. And you still assume humans evolve on it. There is a problem here.

Your continued actions deny that statement. I held out the gauntlet of peace you threw it back, well no one can say I did not try.

See below.

I have five, thanks anyway. But it seems you need one bud. I highlighted the relevant parts just in case you missed this like you did my correction of my Lunar sizing:

Once again, ALL AltHists are a form of fantasy.

Apparently you're not getting this. There's more than one definition of fantasy, as you evidently know, since you posted them. Now, one type of fantasy is imagination. Applying this to alternate history works. Then there's another way of taking it: a world where physical laws aren't taken into account. To do what you've done in this timeline is taking the latter approach, which is not alternate history. Thank you.

Then you telling me to not post here was my imagination?

I said I'd rather not see fantasy in the alternate history thread.

Man I have one heck of a imagination if I can conjure that in reality. I never claimed to know what everybody's motivation was. Only you.

Yet above in this same post, and in multiple other posts, you have expressed the belief that you know what motivates me. You claimed I was elitist, had a class thing, and didn't like newbs posting in this forum. None of these claims are true. Any kind of problems I have with you stem not from your newness, but your words.

Now, I'm going to make my position on this quite clear. It's well and good that you disagree with me on historical matters. I'd have let go the gunpowder thing, and while I freely admit I'd have stopped reading your timeline after the thing with space aliens, I certainly would not be in the rather hostile mood I am now. I would let you keep your opinion, no matter how wrong I thought it to be, and keep it in peace.

However, you crossed a line. You made accusations at me, you launched ad hominem attacks, and generally tried to paint me as a newbie-hater. When you do this, you are not being a good debater, and you are certainly not offering any hand of friendship (except, perhaps, in sarcasm). You are merely being rude.

Feel free to call me sarcastic, rude, or, if it please you, an utter jerk. I'll live. But do not presume that you know the motivations, feelings, or prejudices of myself or anyone on the internet.

 

[a_propagandist]

Is a question, how does the Roman empire survive the administrative problems behind this althist?

Suppose a message need be sent from Rome? Or some gold/tax revenue need be sent back to Rome?

If you allow, in this scenario, the loose self-government many other empires allowed, said empire would fall apart.

 

[Azale]

Thorgrimm, grow up a bit because you bit North King's head off as soon as you could and at the smallest provocation. You have a real talent at this stuff and it would be a shame for you to make enemies out of people who could shape it more.

Honestly, the idea is interesting though not entirely probable...obviously, you know that. That does not make it the plague, but if your asking for criticism, there are plenty of really really intelligent people that are going to dish it out. If you can't take it, don't ask for it.

 

[Thorgrimm]

@Azazle, there is a difference between constructive criticism and bashing. Constructive criticism is great. Bashing will recive a retaliation by me. See my posts where the poster was rational and not bashing. We got along just fine.

Yes, I am aware of that (nice quote from the Wiki article). Apparently you didn't get the point -- changing the gravity of the Moon massively changes Earth along with it. And you still assume humans evolve on it. There is a problem here.

And you are apparently not getting the point, posted twice now, that I have changed that. So want to elaborate on how you keep missing that salient point?

Apparently you're not getting this. There's more than one definition of fantasy, as you evidently know, since you posted them. Now, one type of fantasy is imagination. Applying this to alternate history works. Then there's another way of taking it: a world where physical laws aren't taken into account. To do what you've done in this timeline is taking the latter approach, which is not alternate history. Thank you.

I am still waiting to see how you justify calling Roman invention of gunpowder a violation of any laws of physics that I am aware of. They had access to saltpeter, Sulfur, and charcoal and these substances were used everyday. So how is their combining three well known and available elements a violation of physical laws? Please by all means present your evidence as to how this is a violation of said laws.

And from what I get from you, it takes decades or centuries to develop technology. No possibility for random chance to affect any outcome. So how does your hypothesis support well known inventions that were accidental? Such as Fleming's 'discovery' of the Penicillin bacilli.

By 1928, Fleming was investigating the properties of staphylococci. He was already well-known from his earlier work, and had developed a reputation as a brilliant researcher, but quite careless lab technician; he often forgot cultures that he worked on, and his lab in general was usually in chaos. After returning from a long holiday, Fleming noticed that many of his culture dishes were contaminated with a fungus and he threw the dishes in disinfectant. But on one occasion, he had to show a visitor what he had been researching, and so he retrieved some of the unsubmerged dishes that he would have otherwise discarded, when he then noticed a zone around an invading fungus where the bacteria could not seem to grow. Fleming proceeded to isolate an extract from the mould, correctly identified it as being from the Penicillium genus, and therefore named the agent penicillin.

Thgis by itself invalidates your claims it takes centuries or dedicated teams of researchers decades to develop technology.

As for the source of the quotes, so what? If the information is valid who cares where it comes from. I can also provide many more quotes from other sites if you wish. They all say the same thing more or less.

I said I'd rather not see fantasy in the alternate history thread.

What you actually posted was the following, the relevant point is highlighted:

Now, it's all well and good that you post fantasy -- I frankly don't care, though I'd rather you didn't post it in the alternate history thread

Now the word "you" indicates you pointed that sentence directly at me. If you had not included the word you, then you could squirm out with the explaination it was a generic statement. But it was nothing of the sort.

Yet above in this same post, and in multiple other posts, you have expressed the belief that you know what motivates me. You claimed I was elitist, had a class thing, and didn't like newbs posting in this forum. None of these claims are true. Any kind of problems I have with you stem not from your newness, but your words.

once again a twisring of my words. Only in one post did I intimate a possible knowledge of your reasoning.

Now, I'm going to make my position on this quite clear. It's well and good that you disagree with me on historical matters. I'd have let go the gunpowder thing, and while I freely admit I'd have stopped reading your timeline after the thing with space aliens, I certainly would not be in the rather hostile mood I am now. I would let you keep your opinion, no matter how wrong I thought it to be, and keep it in peace.

There's that arrogance again, how do you presume to take my opinion or my expressing of it away?

However, you crossed a line. You made accusations at me, you launched ad hominem attacks, and generally tried to paint me as a newbie-hater. When you do this, you are not being a good debater, and you are certainly not offering any hand of friendship (except, perhaps, in sarcasm). You are merely being rude.

I let it go a few posts back, but you drug it back up. I am a counterpuncher. I only throw back what comes at me. To be quite honest my sarcasm detector is broken, and has been for quite a while now. It tends to get me into trouble. Ask any of my friends.

Feel free to call me sarcastic, rude, or, if it please you, an utter jerk. I'll live. But do not presume that you know the motivations, feelings, or prejudices of myself or anyone on the internet.

nope, I won't call you that no need to, you are entitled to your opinions just as I am, but when you attack me with troll posts I WILL strike back. If you post criticisms with an adult manner I am as civil and polite as I can be.

Now for the third time, do you wish to discuss this in a rational manner? Or shall we continue our dance? I prefer adult conversations, but either way is fine by me.

And I look forward to your answer to my question I posed earlier in this post.



Cheers, Thorgrimm

 

[North King]

And you are apparently not getting the point, posted twice now, that I have changed that. So want to elaborate on how you keep missing that salient point?

Already pointed out that changing the nature of the system has effects on evolution -- even if the change is lessened. Really, I grasped your point quite a while ago.

I am still waiting to see how you justify calling Roman invention of gunpowder a violation of any laws of physics that I am aware of. They had access to saltpeter, Sulfur, and charcoal and these substances were used everyday. So how is their combining three well known and available elements a violation of physical laws? Please by all means present your evidence as to how this is a violation of said laws.

Forgive me for being a bit nonspecific. Changing the Earth - Moon system without changing anything else is a bit of a violation of physics (yes, I realize you changed it), whereas I suppose inventing gunpowder in the first few centuries AD more falls under the rules of common sense.

And from what I get from you, it takes decades or centuries to develop technology. No possibility for random chance to affect any outcome.

Depends on the technology. Some do take centuries to develop, yes. The invention of gunpowder may have been somewhat random, but it definitely had many years knowledge behind it.

So how does your hypothesis support well known inventions that were accidental? Such as Fleming's 'discovery' of the Penicillin bacilli.

I challenge you to support the assumption that Fleming's discovery could have been achieved without several centuries of biological development behind it. I also challenge you to support that it could have been utilized without that biological knowledge. Killing bacteria doesn't mean much if you don't know what a bacterium is.

Thgis by itself invalidates your claims it takes centuries or dedicated teams of researchers decades to develop technology.

It would have been a magnificent refutation, if I actually claimed that. I'm a believer in random chance. I certainly don't think you require a dedicated team of researchers, otherwise we'd have been in trouble as a species, the Scientific Method being a rather late concept.

What you actually posted was the following, the relevant point is highlighted:

Now the word "you" indicates you pointed that sentence directly at me. If you had not included the word you, then you could squirm out with the explaination it was a generic statement. But it was nothing of the sort.

You're putting the emphasis on the wrong word.

"Now, it's all well and good that you post fantasy -- I frankly don't care, though I'd rather you didn't post it in the alternate history thread"

It was hardly a prohibition on posting, it was a preference for taking off-topic material into other threads.

There's that arrogance again, how do you presume to take my opinion or my expressing of it away?

Nice try. Let you keep it merely meant I wouldn't have been actively attacking it. Funny that you try to claim I wanted to restrict your right to post when the quote was taken out of a paragraph saying I didn't want to do just that. Please take it in context, or don't quote it at all.

I let it go a few posts back, but you drug it back up. I am a counterpuncher. I only throw back what comes at me.

Hey, I'm just explaining my apparent "ego problem" and "arrogance".

 

[Disenfrancised]

@flyinchicken, that's aweful alliteration! (but good points well made).

So you are saying there was no contact or trade across those deserts and mountains? Also, if those same features are so impossible to cross How could Cao Wei prevent the Shu from possible contact.

No my point was that projecting power over such terrain is impractual, thus your postulation of roman diplomacy to keep the Han states out of india is unlikly, as is states bothering to keep such diplomatic contacts.

B,. So you are saying the Guptas could not be overcome? Hmm, according to the history I have read In the 480's the Hephthalite king Toramana broke through the Gupta defenses in the northwest, and much of the empire was overrun by the Huna by 500. The empire disintegrated under the attacks of Toramana and his successor, Mihirakula; the Huna conquered several provinces of the empire, including Malwa, Gujarat, and Thanesar, broke away under the rule of local dynasties. It appears from inscriptions that the Guptas, although their power was much diminished, continued to resist the Huna, and allied with the independent kingdoms to drive the Huna from most of northern India by the 530's. The succession of the sixth-century Guptas is not entirely clear, but the last recognized ruler of the dynasty's main line was Vishnugupta, reigning from 540 to 550.

So? Steppe tribes like the Huns pwned the Romans too . The Gupta inability to deal with a very mobile force of steppe cavalry will have little comparison with their ability to deal with massed infantry like what the romans will be presenting (as it appears the Guptas were quite good at dealling with their neighbours infantry armies), especially as the romans will be much less able to live off the land and will be at the end of insane supply chain unlike the Huna.

I never said they couldn't be overcome, just that you were massively underestimating them.

As for those steel bows lets see what history has to say about them.

So it seems they were found only with the noblemen, making the majority of the ranks using the fine bamboo long bow using bamboo cane arrows with metal heads. So it seems another obstacle is overcome.

So every roman soldier has Cheiroballista and hand cannons? Thus now raises the question of where the romans are getting the money and manufacturies to build these weapons - gunmetal is very specialised.

I was asking for constructive criticism along with suggestions for change. But right from the beginning there was only hostility, derision and scorn. Nothing constructive about that. So once, again, if you have some suggestions for change, by all means, suggest away.

1. The culture on this subforum is rather informal - mocking commentary is par for the course and you may be using out of place sensitivities.
2. As Stat said, maybe we are talking at cross purposes, but I hardly see how constructive critisism, a idea based on probablity evaluation and fact checking, can be offered on a 'timeline of possibilities'. "Yeah, here you said they invented gunpowder and then went on to guns, but I think it would be cooler if they invented jet packs instead!!!"

Yes they are, but difficulty has never stopped diplomacy before.

Yes it has.

There was no major goods traffic as you say. I stated merely a diplomatic mission to obtain the secret of fulminata. Nothing more. If I have done so please point it out.

Your reason for the romans giving up their secret to to remove interference by the Han, which is silly as the Han states can't interfere and both of them should know that.

Please read the article. It stated it had been there for at least a decade before abandonment in 9 AD due to being burnt down after the Varus disaster. That is not indicitive of 'abysmal failure' as you put it, but a act of war.

Abysmal failure may have been hyperbole, but you can build something and then realise it was a horrible and costly idea, and then have to live with it. See Milton Keynes.

The only real technology introduced is Gunpowder. Everything else is an extrapolation of what that one change would lead to. Heck, gunpowder is an extremely simple substance. It is not even a compound, being merely a mixture of potassium nitrate, common charcoal, and sulphur. Any blend of roughly equal proportions of sulphur and charcoal with from 40% to 75% of potassium nitrate --saltpeter-- will flash with considerable noise and may thus qualify to be called "gunpowder".

But experimenting to find the right mix, whilst staying alive takes time. Something you have not accounted for. Also you have not extrapolated (an extrapolation would be taking the development time by Ren Europe, correcting it by the different population and economy size, then +20% for fun) you have given a technological development path so fast (compared to the other developments of gunpowder in europe, the islamic world and china) that it requires additional points of difference.

Also the more you insist gunpowder is 'easy' the weaker the argument for romans keeping it out of the hands of their enemies for centuries on end becomes

The Romans knew of saltpeter, had large deposits of sulfur in Scicily and used charcoal all the time. So it is quite possible for someone to stumble onto its discovery, as long as the required ingredients are available society. You all have shown the way I have described it is fanciful, but at the same time you refuse to admit it can even enter the realm of possibility. So by all means, suggest a new approach to the problem. After all, that is why I originally posted it here.

Your way is more plausible if you have them take a hundred years instead of 20 to stumble upon gunpowder, and then another four hundred to produce basic msukets - which still gives them guns 600 years earlier than the OTL
^
^
(Dis has replaced a tearing comment with constructive critisim, lets see if anyone notices)

1. External Invasion. With the inclusion of the new provinces the invasions are lessened and their impact is much reduced. I have addressed that with the Gothic attacks. And I had them break through the frontier ravaging the new provinces but leaving the core provinces untouched. So you do not have the Goths running amok in Moesia, pannonia, Dalmatia, Thracia or Greece like in OTL.

Rome concentrated her forces on the frontier, once the gates are down the goths can get pretty far (and a larger empire => more diffuse population/large undeveloped regions, both bad for stoping the germannics much less the steppe groups).

3. Without the short-lived emperors there is no need to debase the coinage to keep raising the pay to keep the legions loyal since a stable system of succession had been adopted.

There is still the huge problem of an expanding economy and a shrinking money supply (since gold and silver mines were runnign out)

Yes communications are the major snag in any nations expansion problems. As for Arabia, the Romans were already present in OTL up to the first cataract, so it is not much of a leap over into Arabia along the coasts. I would also expect the Romans to use water travel, river and ocean to keep in contact with their far flung territories.

Quite simply this isn't as easy as you imply, and each mile the legions travel into asia is two miles the messages have to travel. Plus supplies spoil, and rome needs the merchent fleets to supply the Italian cities as well.

1545 793 For the first time in centuries an outside force began to raid Roman territory. A Norse raiding party landed on the east coast of Caledonia and sacked the Roman town of Devana (Aberdeen). The commander of the Classis Britannia dispatched a squadron of 6 sail equipped triremes to catch the raiders. The entire squadron was destroyed by the superior ships of the Norse squadron. The Roman Governor of Britannia shrugged it off as just another pirate raid.

The power of the longship was its speed, ruggedness, shallow draft and cost; a roman trimarine would easily best one or a couple (especially with the super advanced weaponry you've given them) but the point is moot as the Romans would never, ever catch a longboat.

and those facts make this

so Arrius decided to build a fleet based on the captured Longship

...silly - the romans don't have the seamanship or skills to crew a long boat, and since the romans have no intention of going raiding what would be the point of them? They would simply outrun the rest of the fleet and be crushed by the experienced Norse. Th romans need big sail ships like caravels to catch and pound the longboats.

Also the romans can reverse engineer a longboat in a few years but no one manages to get the secrets of gunpowder?

Apparently you're not getting this. There's more than one definition of fantasy, as you evidently know, since you posted them. Now, one type of fantasy is imagination. Applying this to alternate history works. Then there's another way of taking it: a world where physical laws aren't taken into account. To do what you've done in this timeline is taking the latter approach, which is not alternate history.

I'm going to have to agree with NK here, please indicate which type of fantasy you were going for, and then we can advise/contribute/critisise/enjoy based on that.

And from what I get from you, it takes decades or centuries to develop technology. No possibility for random chance to affect any outcome. So how does your hypothesis support well known inventions that were accidental? Such as Fleming's 'discovery' of the Penicillin bacilli.

Thgis by itself invalidates your claims it takes centuries or dedicated teams of researchers decades to develop technology.

Fail. Yes the discovery of penicillin was accidental. What was not was the germ theory of disease, the isolation and identification of the cytology and growth conditions both bacterial and fungal organisms, the development of optics that made the above feasible, the development of the lab equipment for Flemming to leave around, and the technology for large scale fermenting vats and patch production and isolation of the compound. Plus you need a lucky and smart researcher to notice the effect in the first place.

That is what takes decades and centuries.

Edit - curses NK beat me to the last point (but I made it better so we're even )

 

[Dachs]

As the only member of the Alt-historian Triumvirate (a position I just now made up to describe those who have posted multiple alternate histories in recent memory and includes das as Julius Caesar, dachspmg reprising Pompey Magnus, and myself holding down the lovable spot of dear Crassus) not to have commented on the timeline, I feel it is my duty to strike once more at the dead horse.

Thanks. I guess Pompey is all too accurate, especially given the next installment of the Eastern Roman TL.

@ Strategos, thats all I was trying to imply is that it is possible. And I had begun to think that the crux may have been the definitions you described. I am content to say it is possible, and not very probable.

So long as we're not straying into the realm of probability here, just possibility, then I'll generally be fine with this as well.

1587 833 For the last 40 years there had been peace. The Norse had been preparing for a full-scale invasion and from 833 onwards, hardly a year went by without a raid being reported to the Governor in Londinium. The Romans still believed that the raids were random acts of piracy and therefore relegated the threat to minimal.

While not outside the realm of possibility, a unified Norseland this early is highly unlikely. The geographical isolation that the fjords are in militate against much of a central authority, though a Celtic-type "High Kingship" is somewhat in order beforehand I guess. That "High King" would be unable to coordinate raids or invasions effectively though.

The Norse on the other hand had their longships. Ships that were designed with the oceans in mind. That and the Norse were natural sailors since it was far easier to travel in their lands by sea.

This is probably just nitpicking, but it's actually the other way round: Norse longships are designed for shallower waters (their draft isn't very much), while Norse seamanship gets them across the oceans, or in this case the North and Norwegian Seas.

As to the Roman wars in Britannia against the Norse, I am somewhat interested in the tactical details of the battles; why did Rome win at Londinium, lose at Verulamium, and capture the ships at Dubrae?

The slow, slogging fight against the Norse in England does make some sense, although I'm interested in the demographical information (resettlement?), and am also wondering as to the lack of Norse raids on Gaul, which should be much more prosperous and is a highly convenient target given the rivers.

Hmm, thats probably why all the hostility. I thought this was a thread to discuss althists, but if it is for coming up with backgrounds for NES's, that would explain it. My bad.

The original reason for the creation of the NES subforum's alternate history thread series (the first one was, gasp, a poll done by Amenhotep7) was to come up with settings for NESes, so naturally we're sort of biased that way, towards a scenario that retains some historicity and provides a good setting for a NES. So long as there aren't any pretensions towards remaining in the probable as opposed to the merely possible, then I can't honestly say that you ought be met with any sort of hostility.

1. External Invasion. With the inclusion of the new provinces the invasions are lessened and their impact is much reduced. I have addressed that with the Gothic attacks. And I had them break through the frontier ravaging the new provinces but leaving the core provinces untouched. So you do not have the Goths running amok in Moesia, pannonia, Dalmatia, Thracia or Greece like in OTL.

My argument was aimed primarily at destroying the likelihood that these new provinces would even be seized in the first place, especially in the volume they were (having admittedly only skimmed the TL at first glance). There simply is no reason for the Romans to take over Germania and Scythia other than to safeguard against a possible barbarian attack (assuming massive preplanning by the Romans and a collective strategy over the course of multiple emperors), in which case the only Romans in the new provinces would be military (for there is basically no reason for civilians to settle in the impassable German forest or the open plains of Scythia, until they become somewhat profitable by diffusion, and besides, as I believe Dis has previously pointed out, Scythia can't become anything but pastoral for a few centuries at the least and a millennium at most). If the only Romans in the provinces are military, then they will be sparsely populated, because Rome hasn't got the cash to pay a military large enough to cover Scythia and Germania without a civilian infrastructure and cover the already existing provinces as well. Sparsely populated military indicates that the Goths and their ilk would have a relatively easy time of smashing through the frontier and getting to the Danuvius, Rhodanus, and through the Caucasus, thus leaving us at square one again. Besides, the Roman infantry-based system of warfare just doesn't really work on the steppes all that well, even with guns.

2. With the Romans still focused outward instead of inward there would be avenues for the glory and power seekers routes to power besides internal strife, especially with the adoption system I used. Then add there is no Sassinid support for Zenobia there would be even less desire to break off from the empire.

Because every emperor will use the adoption system. They tried that in OTL and Marcus Aurelius ignored it to his peril. As long as the emperor has sons, they will attempt to claim legitimacy from the adopted ones, and it's rather unlikely that every single emperor will fail to produce a child. (What's the fun in being emperor if you can't have a harem or at least a mistress? ) The Thirty Tyrants (yes, I know there weren't actually 30 of them) arose as a result of a few years of political instability combined with a few defeats on the battlefield as a result of corruption; if this is all it takes to set the OTL Roman Empire off, being a colossus as it is, then I tend to lean towards the side of inevitability here. The crisis was, in the end, a fairly good thing for Rome, because they were forced to modernize somewhat and establish a more stable system of military dictatorship, and reorganized the administrative and financial aspects of the Empire, which beforehand were becoming something of a shambles.

I just introduced it a bit earlier, which is not beyond the scope of Octavian's capability of implementing.

I'm pretty sure Octavian didn't have clairvoyance or influence over the Goths' actions centuries into the future; otherwise, how would he have screwed up so badly?

Without the short-lived emperors there is no need to debase the coinage to keep raising the pay to keep the legions loyal since a stable system of succession had been adopted.

And, as before, I disagree that this system of succession is inherently stable, because none is, due to that lovely thing called human agency. I suppose you could theoretically have no Emperors with children, and all of them are competent or better because they choose successors who always are, and who never descend into madness or megalomania or anything like that, and who are in fact the superhuman and divine beings that they proclaim in their titles. This, however, lies in the area of possibility, not probability, which is a more fundamental dispute as previously enumerated.

Without the ravaging of Gaul and the balkan provinces, the rise of Zenobia or the Gallic Empire to disrupt the internal Roman economy I believe there would be no such economic collapse.

Yes, and as I have previously noted I believe the argument that Gaul and the Balkan provinces would not be raided to be inherently flawed and thus inadmissible. However, since we aren't dealing with what's probable, merely with what's possible, then we can completely ignore problems like that. Nice how that works as a catch-all to eliminate little things like logic or reason from the enterprise.

As for constructive criticism, I would venture to say that the Romans did have a very reasonable goal in holding Germania as a military province, and that like Gaul it could see limited Romanization by the Crisis of the Third Century (or its analogue). Acting like Dacia as a brake on the incoming barbarians, it could slow down the destruction that they wreak...and thusly weaken Rome's position later on, as necessary reforms are not put in place and the Empire is forced to deal with a new Great Power in Sassanid Persia, along with the renewed barbarian threat when the Huns begin to move. What you postulate, in my opinion, would lead to the earlier collapse of Rome instead of a general expansion, unless we can get a deus ex machina of a few superhuman emperors in a row who can beat back the barbs before they wreak sufficient economic damage on the Empire. Compare the effects of the Crisis on Rome to castor oil: it doesn't taste so good when it goes down, but it's good for you.

EDIT: I took too long to write this. Dis and NK beat me to most of it; I will say that I like the Keynes joke. Gold and silver mines weren't running out per se; this was the case in Hispania but in Anatolia and Armenia (I guess there wasn't much prospecting going on there due to constant warfare) the Eastern Roman/Byzantine Empire would later discover several major gold mines that fueled Imperial power for awhile, especially during the somewhat ludicrous reign of Theophanes when, it is believed, a new gold mine was opened up that didn't exhaust itself until the reign of Basil II. (Typed that from memory; it is probably distorted.)

 

[Thorgrimm]

Already pointed out that changing the nature of the system has effects on evolution -- even if the change is lessened. Really, I grasped your point quite a while ago.

no I do not think you did. Those new specifications are exactly what our Earth - Moon system is. So there is no change to the mass/ geological evolution. This is what you are failing to grasp.

Forgive me for being a bit nonspecific. Changing the Earth - Moon system without changing anything else is a bit of a violation of physics (yes, I realize you changed it), whereas I suppose inventing gunpowder in the first few centuries AD more falls under the rules of common sense.

See above

Depends on the technology. Some do take centuries to develop, yes. The invention of gunpowder may have been somewhat random, but it definitely had many years knowledge behind it.

But that does not invalidate the supposition that random chance may have taken a different turn in another TL. You keep maintaning it would take centuries to develop it and random chance could not have affected the outcome of some alchemical experiment in that time period.

I challenge you to support the assumption that Fleming's discovery could have been achieved without several centuries of biological development behind it. I also challenge you to support that it could have been utilized without that biological knowledge. Killing bacteria doesn't mean much if you don't know what a bacterium is.

Nice throwback but it will not work. I am still waiting on your evidence to support your statement that Roman invention of Gunpowder violates the physical laws.

It would have been a magnificent refutation, if I actually claimed that. I'm a believer in random chance. I certainly don't think you require a dedicated team of researchers, otherwise we'd have been in trouble as a species, the Scientific Method being a rather late concept.

Actually you did by your statement that it takes centuries of study to produce it. That statement allows no room for random chance.

You're putting the emphasis on the wrong word.

"Now, it's all well and good that you post fantasy -- I frankly don't care, though I'd rather you didn't post it in the alternate history thread"

It was hardly a prohibition on posting, it was a preference for taking off-topic material into other threads.

Incorrect, you are trying to de-emphasise the relevant point it was aimed at me. Nice try to deflect.

Nice try. Let you keep it merely meant I wouldn't have been actively attacking it. Funny that you try to claim I wanted to restrict your right to post when the quote was taken out of a paragraph saying I didn't want to do just that. Please take it in context, or don't quote it at all.

Nope not saying that at all. And there you go again, trying to tell someone how to post.

Hey, I'm just explaining my apparent "ego problem" and "arrogance".

I agree.

Your reason for the romans giving up their secret to to remove interference by the Han, which is silly as the Han states can't interfere and both of them should know that

A valid point and will be changed. Thanks.

So? Steppe tribes like the Huns pwned the Romans too . The Gupta inability to deal with a very mobile force of steppe cavalry will have little comparison with their ability to deal with massed infantry like what the romans will be presenting (as it appears the Guptas were quite good at dealling with their neighbours infantry armies), especially as the romans will be much less able to live off the land and will be at the end of insane supply chain unlike the Huna.

I never said they couldn't be overcome, just that you were massively underestimating them.

Yes they did in OTL. As for supply lines the Romans were the masters of supply and siege warfare. So it is not much of a stretch to say once Bactria had been under roman control for centuries they would have consolidated their chain of supply.

And please point out where I said they were an easy conquest.

So every roman soldier has Cheiroballista and hand cannons? Thus now raises the question of where the romans are getting the money and manufacturies to build these weapons - gunmetal is very specialised.

Never said they were. You were the one making the statement the Gupta armies were all equipped with steel bows. I was just commenting the Romans had their advanced weapons to.

1. The culture on this subforum is rather informal - mocking commentary is par for the course and you may be using out of place sensitivities.
2. As Stat said, maybe we are talking at cross purposes, but I hardly see how constructive critisism, a idea based on probablity evaluation and fact checking, can be offered on a 'timeline of possibilities'. "Yeah, here you said they invented gunpowder and then went on to guns, but I think it would be cooler if they invented jet packs instead!!!"

1. valid point and well taken.

2. I have not yet seen one person show how Romans having Gunpowder is in the realm of the impossible.

The earliest formula clearly identifiable as gunpowder in Europe is one produced by the English alchemist and monk Roger Bacon (1214?-1292?). Bacon appears to have had some knowledge of the potential of saltpeter, sulphur, and charcoal as early as 1247, when he makes passing mention of it in an essay on the wonders of science. But it was not until 1267 that he specified a formula, in a letter to Pope Clement IV (reigned 1265-1268). This formula called for 41.2% saltpeter, 29.4% charcoal, and 29.4% sulphur, a mixture which will flash fairly convincingly and produce a loud noise, though it would have been a little weak as a propellant, due to its low saltpeter content, thus making it short on oxidizer. This did not, however, detract from the impressive pyrotechnical display. Over the next few decades experiments with the new substance appear to have been conducted with some frequency and several formulae exist, all of which are considerable improvements on Bacon's. By 1275 St. Albertus Magnus (1206?-1280), a German scholastic philosopher and theologian who dabbled in alchemy produced a formula which called for 66.6% potassium nitrate, plus 16.7% each of sulphur and charcoal. This is unquestionably gunpowder, for it will go off with a "bang", though not quite the "bang" one would get from the optimal formula, which is 74.64% pure saltpeter, 11.85% pure sulphur, and 13.51% charcoal.

Notice the time elapse between Bacon's letter to Pope Clement and St. Magnus's formula, eight years, and these were two men working in two seperate countries and had improved the original formula quite a bit.

So it is not in the realm of the impossible for the Romans, who were not great innovators, but excelled at re-engineering and improving the technology they did have to improve it.

But experimenting to find the right mix, whilst staying alive takes time. Something you have not accounted for. Also you have not extrapolated (an extrapolation would be taking the development time by Ren Europe, correcting it by the different population and economy size, then +20% for fun) you have given a technological development path so fast (compared to the other developments of gunpowder in europe, the islamic world and china) that it requires additional points of difference.

A valid point if not based on the proscription filled feudal Europe's developement times. They probably could have developed Guns much faster if the Church and nobility did not have proscriptions on weapons development that could endanger their power. Example the Crossbow. Any peasant caught with one could be executed on the spot. All because that one peasant could drop a knight off of his mount and thus challenge his feudal masters.

Your way is more plausible if you have them take a hundred years instead of 20 to stumble upon gunpowder, and then another four hundred to produce basic msukets - which still gives them guns 600 years earlier than the OTL

A very valid point and well taken. 300 years I can see for the pila development. Will consider this with all seriousness. BTW the sarcasm was not needed I was serious when I said constructive criticism is heartily welcomed. I do want to improve this TL but most sarcasm is lost on me and I see it as an attack.

If I have misjudged any sarcastic remarks as attacks, I beg your pardon. Just do this sarcasm impaired fool a favor and let me know it is sarcasm.

...silly - the romans don't have the seamanship or skills to crew a long boat, and since the romans have no intention of going raiding what would be the point of them? They would simply outrun the rest of the fleet and be crushed by the experienced Norse.

And they did not, in the beginning, have the seamanship to crew a fleet well enough to defeat Carthage, but they learned and eventually overcame them. So the historical precedent is there and so is a valid premise.



Cheers, Thorgrimm