Alternate History Thread IV: The Sequel

[Dachs]

Didn't the Mexicans try to blockade them in OTL? Then again, I guess that even back then the American fleet was way better than the Mexican one. Still, remember that naval technology is considerably less advanced than in the OTL Civil War.

The Mexicans probably did try. But the US didn't have much of a navy at this point in time anyway. They didn't at the beginning of the OTL ACW either, but they did a fantastic job of extemporizing (I love that word) a brand-new US Navy out of virtually nothing. Props to Gideon Welles and Gustavus Vasa Fox. Anyway, I think that navally, they would be in roughly the same boat, maybe even better, because the same or greater number of shipyards is supplying ships to blockade a far smaller coast, plus that coast can be blockaded from other points easier (no Atlantic coastline unlike the Confederacy).

And naval technology probably wouldn't have that great of an effect on things; sure, the US wouldn't be able to build monitors, but the only places those would be useful would be on the Sabine and Red, or on the Texan coast (no point in sending them to the Rio Grande; Mexico can shift for itself), all of which are fundamentally defensive - and a US-Texan war will not involve the US being defensively minded. Besides, Paixhans guns were installed on ships in the 1840s anyway, so that innovation would be available to the Americans.

It might be better if he doesn't, and Napoleon is less obsessed with Italy and more obsessed with the New World as a result (maybe have him unsuccessfully shot by a visiting American/Mexican?).

If he doesn't, couldn't the French theoretically just support the Italians some more? I forget the particulars - and I'm not within reach of my books on the topic to double-check - but I was under the impression that it was the mild anti-clericalism of the Piedmontese (which set off the Catholics in France) plus the attack on Napoleon himself that swayed him away from further supporting Italian ambitions in Venetia and/or the Patrimony of St. Peter. Could provide a different context for von Bismarck's German unification, anyway, or even Prussian expansion sans von Bismarck.

...but that's a butterfly, and as such is relatively irrelevant.

 

[Azale]

I'd agree to the first parts, but Texas is sort of moot, in my opinion. For all the (admittedly not wholly undeserved) bluster of Texans about their state, I don't give it good odds on remaining independent under most scenarios for terribly long--between Mexico and America it just doesn't really work in the long run.

Damn straight

I call Texas for an indefinite amount of time, but I really cannot formulate a way in my head that they win. Unless Texas has some spare AK-47's lying around I can't see the Lone Star Republic making it out of that war independent.

Texas would need to score a few big victories to justify French intervention I would think...or even British intervention. From what I remember, being a British protectorate or crown colony was an option that the leaders of Texas weighed along with being a state or remaining independent.

What it would guarantee is that Texas would always be itching to find a way out of the Union...hell, the peaceful union that benefited both sides so well still has a portion of this state pining for the old days of the 10 year Republic. Most of them are just exhibiting state pride, but funneling that into a nationalist movement would not be too hard to see.

Some of this stuff was said already, but I could not really call myself a Texan if I could not go on at least a little rant on Texas althistory

 

[Symphony D.]

Why would the US end up being weaker?

If we assume that Texas does somehow survive and then starts eating Mexico, it maybe has a shot at long-term survival, in which case the US is somewhat weaker overall--but the number of cases where that winds up happening is at most only equal to the number of cases where Texas pops up and is promptly eaten by America or eats Mexico and is then in turn eaten.

Even if Texas survives, does OK, and then gets the support of Napoleon III, that just means Britain winds up siding with the Americans that much more. In most plausible scenarios Texas doesn't go much farther than it did in real life. (and I am somewhat skeptical of the line of reasoning that it would wind up a refuge to the southerners--it has as good of odds as Cuba or some other weird locale, and the American conflict does not fundamentally alter who settles there or the fact they will be in conflict with the Mexicans and will likely have a dicey run of it as they did OTL, or the fact America will want to scheme against Mexico for the southwest).

Ultimately, in my mind, it would tend to result in a far less devastating Civil War and relatively little if any difference to American territorial integrity. If you pair this with Jackson being prevented from setting up the Trail of Tears you wind up with a much more interestingly mixed United States, which will not just suffer less damage from the ACW, but as a result of having not totally shafted the Indians, will probably be in at least a marginally better position during westward expansion. Being able to more quickly and efficiently integrate the continent without troublesome stability issues enables the US to begin to expand its horizons earlier, possibly setting up for some of the bizarro-WWI PoDs discussed earlier by a different (and closer to historical) rise to power than the suggestion there of the American efforts against Canada succeeding.

 

[das]

possibly setting up for some of the bizarro-WWI PoDs discussed earlier by a different (and closer to historical) rise to power than the suggestion there of the American efforts against Canada succeeding.

You are talking about the Anglo-German alliance vs. a stronger USA, correct?

 

[Symphony D.]

You are talking about the Anglo-German alliance vs. a stronger USA, correct?

That was one of several different scenarios proposed, yes.

 

[Jason The King]

Has there been a story line written up on the scenario that the Muslims won the Battle of Poitiers (aka Battle of Tours)? I mean, what if there were incentives and reasons for the Muslims to continue conquering western europe, or perhaps Rahman just wanted to add more territory to the Umayyad caliphate or al-Andalus?

 

[Disenfrancised]

Has there been a story line written up on the scenario that the Muslims won the Battle of Poitiers (aka Battle of Tours)? I mean, what if there were incentives and reasons for the Muslims to continue conquering western europe, or perhaps Rahman just wanted to add more territory to the Umayyad caliphate or al-Andalus?

Well the battle itself was more a raid than anything for the Muslims, so victory wouldn't do that much (other than destroy Martells future political power and descendents), conjecturing the Muslims have resources and drive to push into France is another matter (i.e. leading to a different battle of Poiters), and I think there have been quite a lot of TLs on the matter at various AH sites...*goes and looks for a compelling one*

 

[das]

I wrote an (fairly shoddy, by my present standards) althistory in the Civilisation 3 Stories and Tales forum a long time ago; it is apparently what drew Lord_Iggy to our forum in the first place. Anyway, I used a different solution there, allowing Tariq to keep fighting in Iberia and to nip [wiki]Pelayo[/wiki] in the bud. That would have allowed the Muslims to realistically try and advance into France.

That said, as of late I think that a better way to ensure greater early Muslim spread in Europe is to have them take Constantinople in some way. It's way too difficult for them to have any lasting success in France, but the Balkans, like Iberia, are possible. And then they could attack Italy from two directions. And then someone could use Italy as a base to rebuild the Roman Empire in the name of Allah, while the Church will retreat to Angleland.

And then you get a Slavic pagan revival in the northeast, Vikings either destroying or saving Christian civilisation and Turkic nomads assailing Dar al-Islam.

 

[Dachs]

Time to be stereotypical. Woohoo, playing to stereotypes.

That said, as of late I think that a better way to ensure greater early Muslim spread in Europe is to have them take Constantinople in some way.

Uh...how? This is like trying to get the Sun King's France to have greater success, or a win in World War II for Nazi Germany. They already did just about as well as they could have done under the circumstances; any more is IMHO unreasonable.

It's way too difficult for them to have any lasting success in France, but the Balkans, like Iberia, are possible. And then they could attack Italy from two directions. And then someone could use Italy as a base to rebuild the Roman Empire in the name of Allah, while the Church will retreat to Angleland.

Grand-strategic movements from two directions (wouldn't it be three with Sicily? ) with the already-limited forces of the Caliphate...oy. That just begs defeat in detail via interior lines, something that the Lombards ought to be able to do, unless they (the Lombards) have suffered a mass lobotomy. Italy is perfect for fighting on interior lines anyway - I mean, if I can do it at the beginning of my NESing career against Sheep's and Communisto's overwhelming advantage, Liutprand or Aistulf sure as hell can.

 

[das]

Uh...how?

Yes, that would have to be the main problem with the scenario. Isn't it always, though?

That just begs defeat in detail via interior lines, something that the Lombards ought to be able to do, unless they (the Lombards) have suffered a mass lobotomy.

Dark Age strategy is pretty messy; lots of petty political concerns, very uncertain power bases and so forth. And for the record, I'm not talking about a coordinated invasion from two directions; that's just insanely silly. I'm talking about continuous (as in, over the course of several centuries) pressure via raids and incursions from all directions, which would simply undermine the Lombards over time; about Arabic pirates being able to secure more and more footholds in Italy; and about some good ruler eventually taking over some of those footholds after the Caliphate's collapse, and finishing off impoverished, embattled Italy, which would probably have gotten subjugated by lots of other, relatively unaffected peoples before that. Hell, the Muslim Arabo-Bulgars (a succesful Arabic general could marry into the local aristocracy and start a new dynasty when the Caliphate breaks off, as a wild guess) or whatever might even come in as liberators to the Lombards from their nasty Bavarian feudal overlords.

 

[Disenfrancised]

continuous (as in, over the course of several centuries)

The demographics seem against them in that case (pushing from North Africa and the east), as Europe is able to support more fighting men, and the terrain/agri package bounces back more easily from devastation. Plus the Arabs will be facing pressure all along their eastern borders...

Also the Muslims beat France too much, then the Vikings will be all like 'there's no money here in northern France, but I hear Iberia's lovely this time of year'...

 

[das]

The demographics seem against them in that case (pushing from North Africa and the east), as Europe is able to support more fighting men, and the terrain/agri package bounces back more easily from devastation.

If Arabs control Anatolia, that should make for a pretty nice base from what I recall. And Europe will also have to fight off Avars and Magyars and whatnot regardless.

Plus the Arabs will be facing pressure all along their eastern borders...

The beauty of it is that the Caliphate will fall apart and its Mediterranean composite parts will be free to focus on European expansion while the Persian ones will feel the brunt of it all.

Also the Muslims beat France too much, then the Vikings will be all like 'there's no money here in northern France, but I hear Iberia's lovely this time of year'...

True enough, though there still are other nice things in France. Besides, I don't think it would be ruined beyond repair. I'm not convinced that northern France will really be much worse than in OTL economically, unless the Arabs start raiding them across the Bay of Biscay. I'm sure it would be some time before they adapt to that.

 

[North King]

That said, as of late I think that a better way to ensure greater early Muslim spread in Europe is to have them take Constantinople in some way.

I'd agree.

Uh...how? This is like trying to get the Sun King's France to have greater success, or a win in World War II for Nazi Germany. They already did just about as well as they could have done under the circumstances; any more is IMHO unreasonable.

I'd tend to disagree. The timing of the invention of Greek Fire was borderline miraculous as it was. Any later, and I think Byzantium could have fallen.

The demographics seem against them in that case (pushing from North Africa and the east), as Europe is able to support more fighting men, and the terrain/agri package bounces back more easily from devastation.

Are you sure? I don't remember exactly when the Maghreb crashed, but I thought it was after this. In any case, the Arabs didn't really seem to mind demography so much when they conquered the Middle East.

Plus the Arabs will be facing pressure all along their eastern borders...

From? We're talking about the 600s and 700s, correct? The Turks will merely cause the Caliphate to explode, not implode; the constituent pieces should be able to fend for themselves.

 

[Jason The King]

Lets remember that, for the most part, Afriqiyya and al-Andalus operated separately from that of the Caliphate in Damascus.

And anyways, what I was talking about was an Arab-controlled France (say a crazy Arab commander decided that France was worth it for some reason, and they pushed the French aside as easily as they did the Visigoths). So the Caliphate collapses, an Arabic (or muslim) kingdom in France and al-Andalus could lead to some pretty interesting althistory.

Byzantium could fall earlier if the alliance between Fatimids and Bulgars actually does pull off a full scale war. At this time Byzantium was mostly limited to western Anatolia, Greece, and a few colonies in Italy, and was mostly on the defensive. A stronger Fatimid Egypt and perhaps even a stronger Caliphate could have some repercussions for the future.

 

[das]

I am really not sure if Muslims could really hope to occupy France. The Franks were a resistant lot, and the Muslims don't really have enough troops to take over all of it. The south, sure, but in the north just about every factor imaginable will be against the Muslims. They could subjugate it temporarily, and maybe break it up into tributary states, but a complete annexation seems very unfeasible.

That said, Muslim Aquitaine is attainable, and would be interesting in its own right, especially if it sets up the relations with the northern Frankish tributaries right. It might even be viable.

As to Byzantine fall, I think that internal weakness should make that feasible. Also, ofcourse, we'll have to take away the Greek Fire as North King suggested. Then the Arabs could more or less safely besiege Constantinople; and if, due to treason or blind luck, it should fall, then the Byzantine Empire is quite simply dead, though resistance in Anatolia, the western Balkans and Italy would go on (it would be splintered and weakened, though). Not sure what it could mean politically, though. I'm betting on a strong Muslim (and/or syncretistic, at least early on) Bulgaria, with a capital in Tsargrad. I really don't think the Caliphate will be in any position to actually reap the fruits of its victory in the long-term, and the Fatimids are far from a given in any case (by the way, on a wholly different note, what if the Fatimids had never risen to power, or had never captured Egypt? I think the latter is actually even more interesting; the Fatimids could go west and seize Spain instead, possibly managing to establish a strong Shi'a community over there, while the Ikhshidids would likely have a more stable and regular empire in Egypt and the Levant. No Druzes, but a Shi'ite Maghrib and by extension West Africa).

 

[Disenfrancised]

From? We're talking about the 600s and 700s, correct? The Turks will merely cause the Caliphate to explode, not implode; the constituent pieces should be able to fend for themselves.

Was in response to das's 'several centuries' bit.

 

[Dachs]

I'd tend to disagree. The timing of the invention of Greek Fire was borderline miraculous as it was. Any later, and I think Byzantium could have fallen.

Could have. You still have to deal with supplying a disgustingly overlarge (tho the point of being a ludicrous number in comparison with its objectives...sounds like something the Sui would do ) army in denuded Thrace in winter from a very long supply line that is subject to at least some naval interdiction, and even without Greek Fire the Roman navy is no pushover and will at the very least impede supply. Meanwhile, Asia Minor is seething behind Muawiya's back and holds not insignificant Roman forces - forces which ended up beating the Arabs at Lycia in the aftermath of the siege anyway. The mechanics of the whole thing are mind-boggling.

...almost as many and as damaging errors as the Arabs made in my eleventh and twelfth century ATL, eh wot?

And anyways, what I was talking about was an Arab-controlled France (say a crazy Arab commander decided that France was worth it for some reason, and they pushed the French aside as easily as they did the Visigoths).

But the Visigoths were divided religiously (still fallout from the conversion to Chalcedonianism as opposed to Arianism a century prior) and ethnically, failing to appease the Celtibero-Roman populace of Hispania as well as the Franks had done with the Gallo-Romans (making Clovis one of the greatest political and military geniuses of all time, btw). Besides, Roderigo had just usurped the throne when the Arabs came trundling through, so he had little support from the Visigothic nobles either...and most of the loyal ones, if not all, died at the Battle of the Guadalete.

Then the Arabs could more or less safely besiege Constantinople; and if, due to treason or blind luck, it should fall,

Reliance on treason and blind luck probably isn't the best way to go here. That's changing an awful lot of things at the same time, plus the Greek Fire. Grumble grumble. Besides, this is one of the few times when the Roman populace is united behind the Emperor; Constantine IV even had the Pope on his side, with first Donus being relatively conciliatory and Agatho being a Sicilian Greek (!). There weren't any monothelites or monophysites to revolt either, because they'd already been captured by the invading Arabs.

then the Byzantine Empire is quite simply dead,

Very much so - goes almost without saying. If (grumble) this whole thing actually does happen.

 

[das]

That's changing an awful lot of things at the same time

Making the Byzantines, even in some of their better times, susceptible to treason is a change? There are always some bitter people running around.

As to Anatolia, I agree that the Byzantines there would be quite a pest, but, as said, all that truly matters is Constantinople, and though it is difficult to capture it that might just happen. Not at all likely, to be sure, but possible.

Reliance on treason and blind luck probably isn't the best way to go here.

Do you have a better one?

 

[Dachs]

Making the Byzantines, even in some of their better times, susceptible to treason is a change? There are always some bitter people running around.

That's an awfully broad statement. Sure, there are always some bitter people running around, but there aren't any large groups that are particularly against the current government - well, large enough to conduct effective sabotage or assassination.

As to Anatolia, I agree that the Byzantines there would be quite a pest, but, as said, all that truly matters is Constantinople, and though it is difficult to capture it that might just happen. Not at all likely, to be sure, but possible.

The point would be that such a force - one of the better ones available to the Empire, certainly the most mobile, and probably one of the most numerous - would be able to do a dandy job of interdicting an already tenuous supply line, especially when the Arabs haven't captured several key cities like Amorion and don't have any terribly consolidated territory all the way to the Taurus Mountains. The Arabs can't maintain that huge-ass army on the kind of supplies they're getting, even if the navy isn't entirely annihilated as in OTL by the lack of Greek Fire. Lots of men in a small space + little food * constant combat = incredibly likely failure. Besides, I see the Arab "loss of Constantine IV" and raise with a "loss of Muawiya".

Do you have a better one?

Do I want to figure out a better one? Maybe later today when I've got more time. Time for yet another AP US Gov test (free monies but no comp, sorry).

 

[Cannae]

Could there be an event where the main part of the Islamic invasions go into western Europe and more into Africa, but not go so much into Eastern Europe and Asia/India?