Nothing's perfect. Hence I welcome your comments as to what I screwed up. Doubtless there are many.Wow, perfetc.
Alternate History Thread IV: The Sequel
- Thread starter Dachs
- Start date
North King
blech
- Joined
- Jan 2, 2004
- Messages
- 18,165
Disagree, primarily because of pedantry; at the outset of the war, the Romans were much more powerful than Khosrau II's Sassanids, due to the victories of Maurice (who put Khosrau on the throne after all). It was only because of Narses' "revolt" against Phocas that the Sassanids got anywhere, and having basically the entire Army of the Orient stand down sort of prevents the Romans from doing much of anything successful against the Persians. Without that mutiny, the Romans would have easily repulsed the invasion.
...of course, if the Roman Army wasn't in a condition to mutiny, that means that Phocas didn't manage to kill off Maurice, which means that Khosrau doesn't get to invade anyway.
I was under the impression that Khosrau's reforms had made the Sassinids probably stronger than the Roman Empire at that point. Of course, you're definitely more knowledgeable in this period than I am, so you're probably right.
das
Regeneration In Process
"Strength" is a very dangerous word (in the terms of both uncertain definition and uncertain measurement), especially when talking of the pre-modern eras. But in any case, how ever you measure it, I rather doubt that the changes brought about by Khosrau would have been enough to upset the balance of power.
Have read the new installment, Dachs. Don't have much to comment upon as of yet...
East.
A bit confused here.
That Khadijah (it probably goes without saying, but still merits asking)?
Confused again!
On a totally irrelevant tangent: a while back, I recall reading that Lord Salisbury had proposed at some point in the late 19th century a partition of the Ottoman Empire. I was obviously interested since it's not an idea one would expect most British Prime Ministers to advance (prior to 1907, in any case); sadly, however, I was unable to find any more details on that proposal. Perhaps someone here knows more on the subject?
Which Khosrau - Anushirvan or II? The first Khosrau's reforms did help significantly, especially economically, because he really helped Mesopotamian trade with those canals, and he did centralize somewhat and generally improve revenue with that new taxation system. As for military strength, especially by the time of Khosrau II (which saw a prolonged civil war, after all)...if the Sassanids at the height of Khosrau I's power couldn't beat the Eastern Empire under Maurice and Tiberius Constantine, then why would a slightly weakened empire be able to beat up a Roman Empire unencumbered by Phocas? Granted, Khosrau II did have some professional leaders in charge of his armies (Shahrbaraz, Shahin), but without the resources of the Romans or the problems at the top that the Romans had, I'm not sure that the Persians would have been able to overpower Rome.
That, along with the other errors, comes from writing this at disparate times and forgetting exactly what I wrote. I probably should use more exact outlines. Thanks - will be duly corrected.
Bwahahahahahaha.das said:
I've no clue, though that does sound sort of interesting. A cursory reading of Howe and Seaman yields nothing thus far (and Seaman is usually good about these things), but I'll check around. I wonder what the occasion was; was it close to the 1882 occupation of Egypt?das said:
das
Regeneration In Process
Sadly I can't seem to find my source, but I seem to recall it was later in the century, and though I haven't found an explicit wording in the Internet it seems likely that it had to do with the 1896 massacres in Armenia, which he protested and sought to create a coalition to intervenne against. Given his dislike of the "old empires", he might have easily decided to carve it up right then, but, as said, I can't seem to find details as to how he sought to procede.
@das, was just looking at that article in Lawrence James' Rise and Fall of the British Empire. Lord Salisbury's plan gained some mention, though as far as I can tell by "partition" he meant: "give everything to the British Empire in one form or another." Basically the effort died without any significant support from his advisors.
das
Regeneration In Process
Better than nothing, I guess, though I do remember him contacting other powers about the massacres in such; a weird thing to do if he just wanted Britain to take over all of it by itself. Guess I'll have to keep searching.
Yeah, James is unfortunately rather vague on items which could be interesting. For example, I'm still trying to find out what the heck the Caroline Rebellion of 1837 in Canada was and if it could be an interesting diversion for an NES.
das
Regeneration In Process
Okay, I'm going to revive the map challenge a third time, as apparently we still haven't agreed on anything, the suggested PoDs being reasonably pointed out to be dubious. I think it may be best if we go with an immediate and obvious change as a PoD; I have found that this actually works better with political changes rather than military ones, although the latter are both more obvious and more easy to arrange.
Also, people with suggestions are strongly advised to give the end year with the proposed PoD.
If this fails to pick up again, I already have an idea of my own which I will then post.
Also, people with suggestions are strongly advised to give the end year with the proposed PoD.
If this fails to pick up again, I already have an idea of my own which I will then post.
Disenfrancised
Beep Beep
Okay how about a big and easy one - Maria Theresa (the 18th century one) is born a boy and survives to inherit after Charles VI dies (has personality and competence similar to Maria). Thus the PoD is 1717 (and the political ramifications will occur from then onwards methinks) and taking it up to 1900?
das
Regeneration In Process
Okay, that's good. Challenge accepted. Some people might whine about not having a base map, but as it's supposed to go 1900 a proper 1717 base map won't really be needed.
Some people might whine about not having a base map, but as it's supposed to go 1900 a proper 1717 base map won't really be needed.North King
blech
- Joined
- Jan 2, 2004
- Messages
- 18,165
I'll also go with it, though I have to say the 18th century isn't my best period.
Swissempire
Poet Jester
I'll give it the old college try, and does this mean you will provide a base map Dachs?
Is there any tribute i must pay to the Triumvirate before being annexed into their domain, or shall I just submit myself?
a) Why would I provide a base map? It's not my idea, and Dis and das have already indicated that a base map wouldn't be necessary; just use one of the 1914 ones floating around.
b) I don't know, ask them.
Symphony D.
Deity
Temporarily setting aside the issue of how it might be arrived at, what do people think the effects would be of a MacArthur / Patton ticket taking the White House instead of Eisenhower / Nixon, after Truman left office? What is the probability of such a ticket coalescing (MacArthur did in fact try, but would Patton be willing to go into politics, had he survived)?
das
Regeneration In Process
All I could say is good thing it's MacArthur/Patton and not the other way around. Patton could've been the American Yeltsin - maybe not in the terms of mass reforms, cliques or even getting drunk, but definitely in the terms of causing lots of awkward and embarrassing incidents. The personalities seem similar enough to me.
Swissempire
Poet Jester
For the alt-history challenge, are we posting installments or an all at once barrage? Like I don't want to write an installment and post it and have everyone be like "SWISS, U R N00B!"
das
Regeneration In Process
Technically, it's a map challenge, so you don't, to the best of my knowledge, have to write anything.
