Thlayli
Le Pétit Prince
Where is this guess the PoD map, anyway?
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=5384574&postcount=1646
Alternate History Thread IV: The Sequel
- Thread starter Dachs
- Start date
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=5384574&postcount=1646
das
Regeneration In Process
Mhm. The Askoldian state in Kiev was able to focus its efforts on the Balkans, where its rulers managed to first enter a personal union with the Bulgars (having already had considerable ties with them, at least according to some historians) and then taking Constantinople during one of those political messes that characterised the Byzantine Empire in the early 9th century. The Byzantines never recovered after that, and from there and with a few butterfly effects we get everything else.
Perfectionist
Angel of Verdun
If you don't mind, I've got a couple of questions about that process. For starters, don't you have to cross Pecheneg lands to get from Kiev to Bulgaria? That can be done if you're Sviatoslav and you've got a mounted army and you're practically a Pecheneg yourself, though even he was killed on the crossing back, but I'd've thought it would be a significant impediment to anyone else. And why did they focus on the Balkans? With the exception of Sviatoslav, who was an aberration in almost every way, the Princes at Kiev generally focused on securing the Dneiper trade route until at least Iaroslav, and the trade routes with the Middle Danube didn't need securing. Engaging in adventurism in the Balkans seems an irresponsible diversion for an underpopulated city-state -- and Kiev and its hinterland were underpopulated until Vladimir started forcibly relocating people -- when there are Pechenegs roaming a day to the south.
das
Regeneration In Process
They were far from the peak of their strength, having only now arrived in the area. I wouldn't call them an impregnable obstacle, and besides, they could always be won over, as was done often enough and not just by the Byzantines. Being locked in a struggle with Khazars and Magyars, they might make natural allies for Kiev (as they were for the Bulgar Tsar Simeon in OTL).
It might be argued that it still would be easier for them to secure the Dneiper than for the bigger Rus state in OTL, especially if they do ally with the Pechenegs; and from there, especially when they come into conflict with the Magyars, interest in Danubean Bulgaria becomes inevitable. But yes, it would've taken an aberration to actually go for Balkan hegemony, so that's something of an artistic license: but since influential aberrations were common enough in the period and the region (the aforementioned Simeon immediately comes to mind, as does Svatopluk), I figured it would be permissible.
North King
blech
- Joined
- Jan 2, 2004
- Messages
- 18,165
I was wondering if people would be interested in the following: someone decides a PoD and a year to carry the althist to, and anyone who wanted would make a map based on that PoD, without consulting anyone else participating. Then, at a certain date, we all post maps and compare the results.
The Strategos
Thanatos
- Joined
- Jul 21, 2002
- Messages
- 1,175
If we're given a "base" map, I'd do it.
Luckymoose
The World is Mine
I to would participate.
Swissempire
Poet Jester
APPROV'D...so long as, as Strategos mentioned, we have a base mappala of doom.
das
Regeneration In Process
Gladly. And I think I could manage well enough, map-wise.
carmen510
Deity
Great idea. I wouldn't be able to participate, because my map making skills on the computer is horrible, even though hand drawn, they are great.
Swissempire
Poet Jester
jeps
Arcadefire
wow, i get WAY too much national pride out of looking at that map for it not to be Canada. 
and that is all off of one battle and a follow up to make canada and portugal world class powers? wow.
and that is all off of one battle and a follow up to make canada and portugal world class powers? wow.
Luckymoose
The World is Mine
wow, i get WAY too much national pride out of looking at that map for it not to be Canada.
Britain is better than hockey empire.
Fuschia
A Little Odd
Deviance from Historical Fact
224 C.E.
The region of Fars in the Parthian Empire rebels under the leadership of Ardashir. King Artabanus IV personally leads an army against the uprising. The Parthians suffer a crushing defeat at Hormizdegan, and King Artabanus IV is killed. The Parthian Empire ends, and Ardashir crowns himself the Shahanshah of Persia, beginning the Sassanid Empire.
225 C.E.
The Sassanids move aggressively, and all of the territory of the Parthian Empire has now fallen into their hands.
228 C.E.
A Sassanid invasion of the Roman satellite, Armenia, was highly successful, effectively putting the entire nation under Sassanid control.
229 C.E.
Roman diplomacy with the Sassanids over their invasion of Armenia has achieved its goal: Armenia becomes an official part of the Roman Empire, and the Roman Empire is to pay tribute to the Sassanids.
230 C.E.
This date is most important for what did not happen. The Sassanids did not invade the Roman province of Mesopotamia, instead focusing on expansion through the Arabian Penninsula, waging a successful war on the Lakhmids, and other Arabic nations, and central Asia, where they meet minimal resistance to their expansion efforts.
Rome, on the other hand, continues on its general historical path, with the exception of peace with the Sassanid Empire and a lack of opposition to its interests.
OOC: Anything blatantly wrong with these first few dates? I need some criticism, be it constructive or destructive. Any suggestions would be helpful as well.
224 C.E.
The region of Fars in the Parthian Empire rebels under the leadership of Ardashir. King Artabanus IV personally leads an army against the uprising. The Parthians suffer a crushing defeat at Hormizdegan, and King Artabanus IV is killed. The Parthian Empire ends, and Ardashir crowns himself the Shahanshah of Persia, beginning the Sassanid Empire.
225 C.E.
The Sassanids move aggressively, and all of the territory of the Parthian Empire has now fallen into their hands.
228 C.E.
A Sassanid invasion of the Roman satellite, Armenia, was highly successful, effectively putting the entire nation under Sassanid control.
229 C.E.
Roman diplomacy with the Sassanids over their invasion of Armenia has achieved its goal: Armenia becomes an official part of the Roman Empire, and the Roman Empire is to pay tribute to the Sassanids.
230 C.E.
This date is most important for what did not happen. The Sassanids did not invade the Roman province of Mesopotamia, instead focusing on expansion through the Arabian Penninsula, waging a successful war on the Lakhmids, and other Arabic nations, and central Asia, where they meet minimal resistance to their expansion efforts.
Rome, on the other hand, continues on its general historical path, with the exception of peace with the Sassanid Empire and a lack of opposition to its interests.
OOC: Anything blatantly wrong with these first few dates? I need some criticism, be it constructive or destructive. Any suggestions would be helpful as well.
silver 2039
Deity
- Joined
- Jul 26, 2003
- Messages
- 16,208
Why wouldn't they invade the far richer Roman provinces compared to Arabia?
Fuschia
A Little Odd
Because I don't want them too...
On a more serious note, the real reason is because this Ardashir has some sense, unlike the historical Ardashir. The Romans were much more powerful than the Sassanids militarily throughout the entirety of the many Persian-Roman Wars. Ardashir sees this and decides to expand in Arabia and Central Asia rather than butt heads with the Romans. Also because the tribute that came from allowing the Kingdom of Armenia to be reabsorbed into the Roman Empire is useful in solidifying Sassanid favor with those who were once part of the Parthian Empire as they can now say that "Rome is paying us tribute, we must be better." Not a perfect answer but it is the reasoning I used.
North King
blech
- Joined
- Jan 2, 2004
- Messages
- 18,165
Well, then you're working off of a faulty historical premise. The Romans may well have been of moderately greater power than the Sassinids during their wars (well, except the last war, where it was only Heraclius who saved the Romans), but their projection capabilities were little enough that the empires could fight on a fairly even footing. Moreover, the Romans would probably fight a war before they paid the Sassinids tribute.
I think your objective here is to remove Islam? In this case, there are a few other ways you could do it: perhaps by making the actual Sassinid domination of Arabia tighter than in real history.
I think your objective here is to remove Islam? In this case, there are a few other ways you could do it: perhaps by making the actual Sassinid domination of Arabia tighter than in real history.
Fuschia
A Little Odd
The fact is, the Sassanid victory in Armenia was, in all effect, a defeat of Roman military power; at this point in history, the Kingdom of Armenia was heavily supported by the Roman Empire. Therefore, the prerequisite of a war for the tribute has already been fought. The Romans find it easier to placate the Sassanids with gold than with more fighting, and the amount they send is not all that great.
The Sassanids themselves, having defeated the Romans in a single conflict, would take the paltry tribute and move to expand in other directions, which are much easier to take. The longer they would fight the Romans, the more power they could bring to bear, so continuing to fight wars was a pointless endeavor for them.
I am tightening Sassinid domination of Arabia. However, my objective is not to remove Islam, it is to prevent the destruction of Zoroastrianism, prolong the life of the Roman Empire, and greatly lessen the power of the Pope because of this. Some of those might not quite be clear at the moment, but I will post the next set of events after I get some more criticism, unless I find a fatal flaw in my sequence of events that would require I change them. Feel free to find one.
