Alternate History Thread IV: The Sequel

[Dachs]

And to think I was foolishly asking what the difference from OTL was not so long ago. Good work, Strategos. By the way, here's an edited map. Things mentioned by other people have hopefully been fixed.

 

[das]

I'll have to get around to reading these two timelines one day...

On a random note, I found this collection of prophecies, including those two interesting accounts of events (that would seem to be two versions of the same, but some internal contradictions - so probably the world in question diverged from ours and then bifurcated again after the Battle of Frankfurt) that sound like they have come from a 19th century alternate history:

61. Antonius ~

A German immigrant named Antonius, who was born Cologne in 1820, prophesied the final battle of World War III thus:

"I saw a new war in Alsace. Suddenly from the French side out of Metz and Nancy, large troop transports, where after the battle began, which lasted two days, and which ended by winning over the Prussian commander. The French follow the Prussians over the Rhine in many directions. In a significant battle by Frankfurt, the Prussians were beaten heavily. They pulled back to Siegburg, where they ran into the Russians. The Russians treated the Prussians badly. It appears to me that the Prussians helped the French. The battle by Siegburg has never been equaled for horror. After several days the Russians and Prussians disengage and begin to pull back below Bonn on the west side of the Rhine River. The city of Cologne was shot at; only a quarter of the town was unaffected. They left shortly afterwards and the people were glad and clapped and their faces beamed."

63. Brother Anthony of Aix-la-Chapelle ~

In 1871, the French Brother Anthony recorded his vision describing the final battle near Cologne and the aftermath of the war:

"Some day war will break out again in Alsace. I saw the French in Alsace with Strasbourg at their rear, and I saw Italians fighting with them. Suddenly great transports of troops arrived from the French side. A two-day battle ended with the defeat of the Prussian army. The French pursued the Prussians over the Rhine in many directions. In a second battle at Frankfurt, the Prussians lost again and retired as far as Siegburg, where they joined a Russian army. The Russians made common cause with the Prussians. It seemed to me as if the Austrians were aiding the French. The battle at Siegburg was more horrible than any before and its like will never occur again. After some days the Prussians and Russians retreated and crossed, below Bonn, to the left bank of the Rhine. Steadily pressed by their opponents, they retired to Cologne, which had been bombarded so much that only one-fourth of the city remained intact. Constantly in retreat, the remainder of the Prussian army moved to Westphalia, where the last battle went against them. The people greatly rejoiced because they were freed from the Prussians.

"Then a new emperor, about 40 years old, was elected in Germany, and he met the Pope. Meanwhile, an epidemic broke out in the region devastated by the war, and many people died. After the battle in Westphalia, the French returned to their own country, and from then on there was peace between the French and the Germans. Industry and trade prospered, and many convents were founded. All the exiles returned to their homes. When I begged God to take the terrible vision away, I heard a voice saying: "Prussia must be humiliated and in a manner that it never again will bring sorrow to the Church." In the following year the Russians will war with the Turks, driving the latter out of Europe and seizing Constantinople. The new German Emperor will mobilize for war but the Germans will not go beyond their border. When afterward I was shown France and Germany I shuddered at the depopulation that had taken place. Soon after the Russo-Turkish War, England also will be visited by war."

Guess-the-PoD.

 

[Dachs]

Ooh, 'Siegburg' for the irony. I wonder whatever happens to Engelbert Humperdinck in that case. As for the PoD p) I'm kind of unclear; is it supposed to be the 1870 war that this is about, or the Great War, or something? There is an interesting similar discussion if it is the 1870 war.

 

[North King]

Dachs: China and Spain are too easily confused.

 

[das]

Well, the site seems convinced that it's about WWIII, for some reason (Prussians=GDR? Ugh). Now, I would have said that it has to be before 1871 because of the use of Prussians rather than Germans, but I guess that it's not really such a powerful argument, plus the second version is more clearly dated at 1871 (but that may be ignored if we wish).

 

[Symphony D.]

A rather bizarre world to explore.

 

[das]

I think I've seen it before; a shame that they rip things off so much, from what I remember. Still, there are some nice moments, and the sheer detail is neat.

 

[bestshot9]

what's PoD mean?

 

[Dachs]

what's PoD mean?

Point of Departure [from the original, real-world, timeline]. It's the thing that you change to get the 'alternate' in alternate history. Other althistorical jargon:

OTL = Original Timeline
TTL = This Timeline
ATL = Alternate Timeline

 

[bestshot9]

aye, thanks for the clarification

 

[das]

This should be on the front page or something.

 

[Dachs]

The current front page is kind of disconcerting as it is. The third post in my 'Meade at Gettysburg' TL is kind of dunking people straight into things, as it were. We didn't do that in either of the other two sequel threads. I think I'll spoiler-tag the TL installment and then put up the acronyms.

EDIT: Done. Improvement?

 

[das]

Certainly.

Whilst doing the research for the Iron Age NES, I couldn't but notice that the Lydians (and post-Hittite, pre-Turkish Anatolians in general) got the short end of the stick, historically, especially taking into account their apparent potential. I have some considerations as to the reasons (objective and subjective) behind this, but I would like to know what the rest of you think about Lydia's potential, both as an Asian military despoty and as a trading power, and about why it wasn't exactly fulfilled (apart from Meles being lazy and not carrying the lion all the way ).

 

[Dachs]

Immaculate got me thinking: it's an awful shame that Kleomenes III was defeated so early. I know Makedonia coming down on the side of Aratos and the Achaians kind of turned the issue, but perhaps if Kleomenes had been more conciliatory after Dyme he could have prevented Antigonos Doson from intervening in the first place and slowly expanded his power from there; after all, demanding leadership of the Achaian League was a bit overboard. Or perhaps Aratos not having the ability to push the policy of partial submission to the Makedonians through the rest of the League, and so being forced into a much more disadvantageous peace with the Spartans. A Spartan-controlled Peloponnese would lend itself very well towards attempts at breaking the Makedonian symmacheia over central and northern Hellas and would have a reasonable chance at defending itself from Ptolemaic interventions against their former allies as well; given reasonably good diplomacy in the next few decades, such a Sparta would play an interesting role in the Makedonian/Roman struggle to say the least (assuming said struggle takes place, given the relative lack of pro-Makedonian quiescence in Hellas in general and the correspondingly greater benefits for the Makedonians to ignore the Romans in Illyria), as well as allowing the Ptolemaioi to probably retain their Aigian foothold. Thoughts?

Whilst doing the research for the Iron Age NES, I couldn't but notice that the Lydians (and post-Hittite, pre-Turkish Anatolians in general) got the short end of the stick, historically, especially taking into account their apparent potential. I have some considerations as to the reasons (objective and subjective) behind this, but I would like to know what the rest of you think about Lydia's potential, both as an Asian military despoty and as a trading power, and about why it wasn't exactly fulfilled (apart from Meles being lazy and not carrying the lion all the way ).

I think that you demonstrated the potential for Lydia pretty well with its ITNES analogue, Luca. (Or rather, Capulet and andis did. ) Due to the Medes, Lydian interest in Hellas proper was a good deal lower outside of the trading situation, so having the ability to beat them off opens up possibilities for either suborning the Greek golden age or stifling it in a way that Dariush and co. wouldn't have done. Me being me (and me having read too much Herodotos), I usually come down on the side of Kroisos' reign and disastrous intervention being the most important reason. The Spartan alliance made no sense due to the total lack of Lakedaimonian interest in Anatolia much less the Medes, and Amasis was far too distant to effect the conflict by much.

 

[das]

Thoughts?

I think Kleomenes should've avoided a war with the Achaeans and instead should've tried and led an all-Greek war against Macedon; many people, possibly including Aratus himself, would've gotten behind that if approached in a suitably desperate moment. Then the ephors (and maybe Aratus as soon as he begins to quarrel with the saviour of Greece) could be executed for treason in favour of Macedon or something like that, whilst Kleomenes could rebuild the Peloponessian League. As for the Macedonians, the united efforts of Peloponessos and anyone who cares to help rise up would be enough to keep them at bay, at the least. Admittedly, all of this is a bit difficult to pull off, but I don't see any better ways out, except maybe for somehow dragging Rome into this early on and on the right (i.e. Spartan) side.

I think that you demonstrated the potential for Lydia pretty well with its ITNES analogue, Luca.

Which is why I want to know why it didn't work out that way in OTL, Greeks being weaksauce aside.

or stifling it in a way that Dariush and co. wouldn't have done.

The Lydians would've lacked many of the Persian weaknesses, but also many of their strengths. Their cavalry might've been enough for Macedon and Thessaly, but further south the hoplites would've been difficult to fight off; though maybe the Lydians would've been able to hold on to their gains, unlike Persians. Then again, on the sea, they will need a proper naval tradition (or did they have one and I missed it?), and/or some allies. On the plus side, they would've had a considerable advantage in diplomacy, having a more prolonged and thorough contact with the Greeks and generally much less megalomania; mayhaps they could've exploited the local conflicts and set themselves up as arbiters? The Spartan alliance might be useful after all...

I usually come down on the side of Kroisos' reign and disastrous intervention being the most important reason.

I somewhat doubt that the Persians wouldn't have conquered Lydia after having secured a large portion of Asia Minor.

 

[Dachs]

I think Kleomenes should've avoided a war with the Achaeans and instead should've tried and led an all-Greek war against Macedon; many people, possibly including Aratus himself, would've gotten behind that if approached in a suitably desperate moment.

Problem is, Aratos already did that in the 240s against Antigonos II and it didn't really work, and even then required the aid of the Makedonian presence in Korinthos to spark a Korinthian rebellion. And then in the war against Demetrios II the Greeks lost their position in Boiotia, which reduced the areas of contention with Makedonia as well as the places in which they could reasonably threaten them. Might work if Antigonos Doson decides to get all expansionist to improve his position at home, being a usurper and all. Start the Makedonian attack in 229, before Kleomenes seizes the Arkadian cities, and have Antigonos depose Philip early.

Then the ephors (and maybe Aratus as soon as he begins to quarrel with the saviour of Greece) could be executed for treason in favour of Macedon or something like that, whilst Kleomenes could rebuild the Peloponessian League. As for the Macedonians, the united efforts of Peloponessos and anyone who cares to help rise up would be enough to keep them at bay, at the least. Admittedly, all of this is a bit difficult to pull off, but I don't see any better ways out, except maybe for somehow dragging Rome into this early on and on the right (i.e. Spartan) side.

Roman interests in Hellas are pretty low, since the Greeks aren't pirating around in the Adriatic unlike their Illyrian brethren to the north. Considering how close Kleomenes came to holding the Isthmus when Makedonia was allied with the Achaians, it's not unreasonable to assume he could make a stand there successfully without as many issues in his rear to deal with. But yeah, that makes sense.

So what about later on? All things considered, a southern Greek state with power somewhat less than that of Makedonia but still greater than any of the OTL Leagues makes the Aigion much more interesting. I could see Rhodes reaffirming the old Ptolemaic alliance if the Spartans et al get as interested in the naval aspect as Philip V was in OTL, whereas the Spartan threat could work in central Greece to allow a further coalescence of the Boiotians and Athenians around the Makedonian authority similar to what happened in the OTL Social War. Since Makedonia as a whole would be less interested in Illyria and much more oriented towards southern Hellas and the Aigion (I don't think Antigonos III or Philip V would have given up the Peloponnesos as a bad job), would the clash with the Romans even occur at all? And if so, would it not be significantly delayed? That offers interesting prospects for the Seleukids, especially with regard to maintaining Antiochos' gains against the Baktrians and Pahlava. Probably a quicker Roman victory in the Second Punic War, too.

The Lydians would've lacked many of the Persian weaknesses, but also many of their strengths. Their cavalry might've been enough for Macedon and Thessaly, but further south the hoplites would've been difficult to fight off; though maybe the Lydians would've been able to hold on to their gains, unlike Persians.

Persia ended up adopting hoplites eventually, because they were definitely in service in the royal army by the fourth century BC and in the western satrapies they were used at the very least a hundred years earlier, and I think that Lydia would be even quicker to adopt that system of warfare, especially considering their longer term contact with the Ionian city-states.

Then again, on the sea, they will need a proper naval tradition (or did they have one and I missed it?), and/or some allies.

I don't know about any naval tradition, unfortunately, but the Lydians could use the Ionian Greeks like the Persians used the Phoenicians and the Romans used the Megale Greeks. That's kind of how Makedonia did it in the fourth century, too.

On the plus side, they would've had a considerable advantage in diplomacy, having a more prolonged and thorough contact with the Greeks and generally much less megalomania; mayhaps they could've exploited the local conflicts and set themselves up as arbiters?

You mean similar to the situation in the early fourth century following the Korinthian War and the Peace of Antalkidas? Interesting.

The Spartan alliance might be useful after all...

Considering it was only made when Kroisos got uncomfortable with having his Median neighbors, I don't know if it would exist. Depends on when the PoD is, of course.

I somewhat doubt that the Persians wouldn't have conquered Lydia after having secured a large portion of Asia Minor.

They might want to expand, but means and goals are two different things, and imperial troubles elsewhere can be easily manufactured, especially when there are restive tribes in Central Asia.

 

[das]

All things considered, a southern Greek state with power somewhat less than that of Makedonia but still greater than any of the OTL Leagues makes the Aigion much more interesting. I could see Rhodes reaffirming the old Ptolemaic alliance if the Spartans et al get as interested in the naval aspect as Philip V was in OTL, whereas the Spartan threat could work in central Greece to allow a further coalescence of the Boiotians and Athenians around the Makedonian authority similar to what happened in the OTL Social War. Since Makedonia as a whole would be less interested in Illyria and much more oriented towards southern Hellas and the Aigion (I don't think Antigonos III or Philip V would have given up the Peloponnesos as a bad job), would the clash with the Romans even occur at all? And if so, would it not be significantly delayed? That offers interesting prospects for the Seleukids, especially with regard to maintaining Antiochos' gains against the Baktrians and Pahlava.

I think that Sparta would retain its alliance with the Ptolemies, whereupon Makedonia will eventually have to reconcile with the Seleukids, setting the Hellenistic world up for a new big coalition war (not immediately, but sooner or later...) and causing the Hellenic states to focus less on the far east and the far west and more on the Eastern Mediterranean. I'm not sure, but maybe this is just what the Ptolemies needed to repair their fortunes, and also there are some opportunistic not-quite-Hellenic powers on the periphery that might exploit this. I agree that Rome might lose interest in the Greeks, though, instead moving to finish off Carthage and take over Iberia and Gaul more quickly. A less Hellenised, less spoiled-by-wealth-and-slaves-from-conquered-Hellenistic-territories-which-would-speed-up-socio-economic-and-political-decay Roman Republic is pretty interesting in its own right - has this been done before? Anyway, the Romans will eventually turn towards the Eastern Mediterranean regardless, due to demands of trade and growth of piracy, but it might be a century or two later and quite possibly less extensive. Pontus might stand a chance.

Persia ended up adopting hoplites eventually, because they were definitely in service in the royal army by the fourth century BC and in the western satrapies they were used at the very least a hundred years earlier, and I think that Lydia would be even quicker to adopt that system of warfare, especially considering their longer term contact with the Ionian city-states.

Hoplites are useful, but would they be a decisive advantage over, well, more hoplites? Hoplites plus elite cavalry might be, but only in certain regions.

I don't know about any naval tradition, unfortunately, but the Lydians could use the Ionian Greeks like the Persians used the Phoenicians and the Romans used the Megale Greeks.

Guess so; I suppose that they would arrange relations with the Ionian Greeks much like the Persian eventually did? Or maybe a more loose affiliation, with pro-Lydian factions being kept in power by military intervention against tyrants and/or people who aren't tyrants but have attained public prominence by speaking against cooperation with the Lydians and might maybe possibly want to become tyrants under this guise.

You mean similar to the situation in the early fourth century following the Korinthian War and the Peace of Antalkidas? Interesting.

Yes; I think that if the Persians could do it, the Lydians would find it even more easily unless commercial competition gets in the way too much.

Considering it was only made when Kroisos got uncomfortable with having his Median neighbors, I don't know if it would exist.

They might become mutually uncomfortable with the Athenians growing in power.

They might want to expand, but means and goals are two different things, and imperial troubles elsewhere can be easily manufactured, especially when there are restive tribes in Central Asia.

It didn't stop them from sending several huge expeditions to Greece; had those armies been used against an overland enemy, the Lydians would've been very hard-pressed to win.

Although they would doubtless try and work with Egypt and the Greeks.

 

[Dachs]

I think that Sparta would retain its alliance with the Ptolemies, whereupon Makedonia will eventually have to reconcile with the Seleukids, setting the Hellenistic world up for a new big coalition war (not immediately, but sooner or later...) and causing the Hellenic states to focus less on the far east and the far west and more on the Eastern Mediterranean.

Would the Ptolemaioi keep the alliance even after the Spartans gain that much power? Just like the British in Germany during the eighteenth century, they were mostly interested in finding, as you put it, 'night guards' for their Aigion holdings. A sufficiently powerful Sparta (under a dude like Kleomenes III, who was genial but perhaps a little megalomaniacal) might threaten those holdings more than Makedonia. Then again, defeat in the Isthmus might be what Makedonia needs to generate a renaissance and thus become a real threat to the Ptolemaic islands again, especially if they align with the Kretan pirates. As to the Seleukids, they were usually allied with the Makedonians anyway, so that'll be easy.

I'm not sure, but maybe this is just what the Ptolemies needed to repair their fortunes, and also there are some opportunistic not-quite-Hellenic powers on the periphery that might exploit this.

Reasonable. They did, after all, have a brief success at Raphia (though that was more due to desperate measures and anti-elephant tactical innovation than anything else). They'll probably lose Kilikia anyway, but Coele Syria is up for grabs.

I agree that Rome might lose interest in the Greeks, though, instead moving to finish off Carthage and take over Iberia and Gaul more quickly. A less Hellenised, less spoiled-by-wealth-and-slaves-from-conquered-Hellenistic-territories-which-would-speed-up-socio-economic-and-political-decay Roman Republic is pretty interesting in its own right - has this been done before?

I tried, but coalition failures and bad timing really hurt.

Anyway, the Romans will eventually turn towards the Eastern Mediterranean regardless, due to demands of trade and growth of piracy, but it might be a century or two later and quite possibly less extensive. Pontus might stand a chance.

Agreed, though within a century they'll probably be fighting brushfire wars with the Makedonians over Epeiros anyway, depending on the outcome in the Aigion and that of the next great war overall.

Hoplites are useful, but would they be a decisive advantage over, well, more hoplites? Hoplites plus elite cavalry might be, but only in certain regions.

Yeah, that's true. Lydia probably wouldn't have too great success in Athens and the Peloponnesos - though that is almost guaranteed - or in Aitolia and Epeiros, due to fun mountains. Thessalia and Makedonia could be puppeted or directly seized, though.

Guess so; I suppose that they would arrange relations with the Ionian Greeks much like the Persian eventually did? Or maybe a more loose affiliation, with pro-Lydian factions being kept in power by military intervention against tyrants and/or people who aren't tyrants but have attained public prominence by speaking against cooperation with the Lydians and might maybe possibly want to become tyrants under this guise.

Probably. They already had a loose arrangement with the Ionian Greeks, driven by mutual fear of the Median empire, collecting tribute. Even Kroisos with his constant petty attempts at more direct control didn't really shake that up much (there's that story about Adrastos seeking asylum in Lydia from Herodotos that indicates that Lydia and the Greeks were pretty tight), and with more diplomatic rulers the Lydians would probably not have much trouble asserting a symmacheia type dominance, keeping tyrants in power in exchange for tribute and so forth.

They might become mutually uncomfortable with the Athenians growing in power.

Perhaps. Revolutionary fervor etc. did carry the Kleisthenean Athens pretty far.

It didn't stop them from sending several huge expeditions to Greece; had those armies been used against an overland enemy, the Lydians would've been very hard-pressed to win.

Although they would doubtless try and work with Egypt and the Greeks.

Yeah; assuming a better-worked coordination between the Lydians and Egyptians, things could get pretty rough for the Persians. Or perhaps a Babylonian revolt. Not fighting against a Great Captain like Kurush would probably help too.

 

[das]

Would the Ptolemaioi keep the alliance even after the Spartans gain that much power? Just like the British in Germany during the eighteenth century, they were mostly interested in finding, as you put it, 'night guards' for their Aigion holdings. A sufficiently powerful Sparta (under a dude like Kleomenes III, who was genial but perhaps a little megalomaniacal) might threaten those holdings more than Makedonia. Then again, defeat in the Isthmus might be what Makedonia needs to generate a renaissance and thus become a real threat to the Ptolemaic islands again, especially if they align with the Kretan pirates. As to the Seleukids, they were usually allied with the Makedonians anyway, so that'll be easy.

I think that the Ptolemies had some broader interests as well, namely checking the Seleukids and their natural allies. By the way, a weakened Makedonia would be driven even closer towards the Seleukids, whereas the Seleukids might decide to help their allies whilst also indebting them to themselves and seizing forward positions from which to control Makedonia. The Ptolemies would have no choice but to help, in Greece or elsewhere. Likewise, if the Spartans are losing but still aren't as weak as they were in OTL, the Ptolemies would be inclined to reinforce them against the Makedonians, at which point the Seleukids will send their own forces there or, better yet, try to invade Egypt.

I think that those coalitions make sense, generally speaking, although they might not come into being until a bit later on when the stalemate in Hellas is broken.

 

[Dachs]

I think that the Ptolemies had some broader interests as well, namely checking the Seleukids and their natural allies.

Very true.

I think that those coalitions make sense, generally speaking, although they might not come into being until a bit later on when the stalemate in Hellas is broken.

They do indeed make sense. A lot of the Ptolemaic actions will probably hinge on Antiochos Megas' situation in the eastern territories, too, which will balance out the Egyptian distraction in the Aigion. They'll want to act while Antiochos is off in the East subjugating the Pahlava and Baktrians, which probably would happen roughly as OTL (Persia in general being more important for the Seleukids than Greek stuff). I agree with the subordinate position of the Makedonians in the Seleukid alliance (if the Seleukids can, if only briefly, suppress Pergamon with Makedonian assistance, that ought to be base enough), but that ought to be remedied after the Big War is over when they might be able to work on Asia Minor.

You know, I might outline this and then do up a map for a century or two down the line. Might be useful for somebody.