Alternate History Thread IV: The Sequel

[Thlayli]

Haha, roof tiles ftw. The real question is, will you have Ptolemy's empire suffer the same fate as the one of Pyrrhus in OTL?

This is a really impressive TL. The Eumenids have been rather lethargic for the last...oh, 30 years, though, and I can't help but wonder what they're up to.

 

[Supermath]

Didn't you have a roof tile kill Napoleon once as well?

 

[Dachs]

Didn't you have a roof tile kill Napoleon once as well?

I like the device, I must admit. A frequent trick of poor writers is to revisit the same concept.

 

[das]

Actually, that (the Sarmatian bit) was relatively unexpected.

from the machimoi as well, the traditional warrior class of the Aigyptioi,

The Libyans (Ma), right?

the dead Adaskos

When did he die, exactly?

Attempting to build a siege tower to approach the high walls of Rhodos was probably out of the question

Heh.

Areios himself – lately of Ptolemaic alliance

Are you sure about the Ptolemaic bit?

Anyway, a tremendous and well-written catastrophe(s); the Hellenic politian political mess and the argyraspidai awesomeness are particularly well-done. I approve of the idea of Seleucus fleeing to take over Macedon. The barbarian involvement seems to be greater than OTL; the Sarmatians are likely to acquire a taste for southern wealth after that first little expedition, in which case it will be like the 8th-7th century Scythians all over again.

I like the device, I must admit. A frequent trick of poor writers is to revisit the same concept.

You can always call it a motif.

 

[Dachs]

The Libyans (Ma), right?

From my understanding, the machimoi were basically drawn from the native Aigyptian warrior class - my knowledge of their history before Alexandros is a bit thin, sadly, so I wouldn't be able to say if they were descended from Libyans. They're an OTL tool of the Ptolemaioi, and were subdivided into further classes based on wealth, which would be called up as necessary. (There is one group, the machimoi epilektoi, which was the unit of phalangitai created by Ptolemaios IV as a last-minute levy for Raphia.) Early on, the machimoi were mostly ethnically Aigyptian, but eventually became Hellenized significantly, and probably by the second and first centuries BC(E) had strains of Keltoi (from the Galati mercenaries the Ptolemaioi used so much) and Thraikian.

When did he die, exactly?

He then camped at Arshamashat for the winter, while the Saurometai and their Hai “allies” eradicated the last adherents of Adaskos, who had gathered at Phraaspa in Adurbagadan.

309 BC(E). His involvement, like his namesake's in the Mandalorian War, was sadly rather ephemeral.

Heh.

Nobody's a besieger like the Besieger.

Are you sure about the Ptolemaic bit?

Pretty sure, since Areios contracted an alliance in TTL during the early 290s, when Ptolemaios I was looking to undermine Lysimachos' control over the Aigion.

I approve of the idea of Seleucus fleeing to take over Macedon.

He's this TL's Demetrios I, kind of, but of course with his own native talents. Be interesting to see how the Seleukidai deal with Hellas as compared to the Antigonoi. Speaking of which: switching the deaths of Pyrrhos and Ptolemaios Keraunos?

The barbarian involvement seems to be greater than OTL; the Sarmatians are likely to acquire a taste for southern wealth after that first little expedition, in which case it will be like the 8th-7th century Scythians all over again.

You can always call it a motif.

I could do that.

 

[Thlayli]

So, will it be called a Ptolemaic victory in this TL?

 

[Dachs]

So, will it be called a Ptolemaic victory in this TL?

Will what be called a Ptolemaic victory?

 

[silver 2039]

From before,

(Though not the ksatriyas, since they lose caste status if they leave India.)

This isn't entirely true. The ksytria's don't lose cast if they leave India.

The Avadh Bhramin's lose caste if they "cross the black water" and this applied for the Bhramin Sepoy's from Awadh who objected to going to war against Burma in ships.

Also India as an entity at the time is loosely defined, often it considered to include

* In medieval literature and geography: the term "Greater India" (P. Indyos mayores[1]) was used at least from the mid 15th century.[1] The term, which seems to have been used with variable precision,[2] sometimes meant only the Indian subcontinent;[3] however, at other times, in some accounts of European nautical voyages, "Greater India" (or "India Major") extended from the Malabar (present-day northern Kerala) to India extra Gangem[4] (lit. "India, beyond the Ganges," but usually the East Indies, i.e. present-day Malay Archipelago) and "India Minor," from Malabar to Sind.[5]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greater_India

So its not something that's really a hindrance, people like the Chola left India and went to Indonesia, Burma, etc...

 

[Thlayli]

A pyrrhic victory...the term won't exist ATL, they'll have to replace it.

 

[Dachs]

A pyrrhic victory...the term won't exist ATL, they'll have to replace it.

Kind of like how all those Apameias scattered around the East are going to have to be renamed. (And how I already did it, to an extent. Did you notice? )

 

[das]

From my understanding, the machimoi were basically drawn from the native Aigyptian warrior class - my knowledge of their history before Alexandros is a bit thin, sadly, so I wouldn't be able to say if they were descended from Libyans.

Well, the EAigyptians are not exactly known for being outstanding warriors, certainly not after the New Kingdom, and based on both the apparent status of the Meshwesh/Ma in Egypt during the Third Intermediate and on what Herodotus had to say about the Libyans (they got an exclusive ethnic warrior caste sort of deal - what's the deal with Aegyptos and those things, anyway?).

Pretty sure, since Areios contracted an alliance in TTL during the early 290s, when Ptolemaios I was looking to undermine Lysimachos' control over the Aigion.

It just sounds like the Ptolemaics invaded to replace their ally with another ally, which does make sense on some level but still odd enough to be questioned - or did I misunderstand?

Speaking of which: switching the deaths of Pyrrhos and Ptolemaios Keraunos?

Yes, that was a win.

Incidentally, I can't seem to find the Euphrenos River anywhere; any other names? Also, what parts of Asia Mikra are controlled by whom?

And it's Cadmean victory, damnit.

 

[Dachs]

It just sounds like the Ptolemaics invaded to replace their ally with another ally, which does make sense on some level but still odd enough to be questioned - or did I misunderstand?

No, you didn't misunderstand; call it the action of a genial madman? Areios was an ally, but a wavering one, and Keraunos couldn't be sure of his willingness to cooperate.

Incidentally, I can't seem to find the Euphrenos River anywhere; any other names?

It's actually too small to be named on a lot of the maps that I can quickly find; having said that, it is the small river that flows first east and then north, parallel to the modern Hopur Çayı, and is the principal river of the country of Cyrrhestica.

Also, what parts of Asia Mikra are controlled by whom?

The Ptolemaioi have a strong garrison in Kilikia, Pamphylia, Lykia, Mysia, Karia, and coastal Lydia. Phrygia - in the sense of 'Greater Phrygia' - is nominally held by them, with a few cities garrisoned, but in reality it is rather lawless. Antigonos has a loyal garrison in Kappadokia, and in Bithynia. Pontos is really controlled by neither side.

And it's Cadmean victory, damnit.

Would that not refer to the gains made by the other side, profiting from the dissension and destruction of their enemies?

 

[Dachs]

Sorry about the doublepost, but I was reading Tarn over the past few days and it occurred to me that a Makedonian victory at Pydna wouldn't have saved that doomed kingdom from the Romani but may have had an interesting effect further east. Antiochos IV was at that time invading Aigyptos and had basically made himself master of the country, but in RL he was ordered to withdraw by the Romani, who had just achieved ascendancy over the Makedones. If Antiochos is left to his own devices in Aigyptos, even transitorially, it is probable that Eukratides would not have been dispatched to the east, due to a need to prop up a new pharaoh and all sorts of fun hijinks. Without Eukratides' assault, there would seem to be more scope for the empire of the Euthydemoi, in Baktria and India, to expand its operations...maybe retain Pataliputra, and even establish a border on the Vindhyas, with interesting implications for the spread of Buddhism and Hellenization in India. Thoughts?

Prediction: silver decries as "stupid" and/or "heretical".

 

[silver 2039]

I wish you would stop using terms you stole from Europa Barborum.

 

[Dachs]

I wish you would stop using terms you stole from Europa Barborum.

1) I didn't steal them. It's called "history"; read it. They're a handy resource, but they ultimately rely on their sources; sources that I also use.
2) Europa Barbarorum doesn't really talk much about stuff that happens in northern India beyond Kaspeiria (ooh, a term that doesn't occur in EB! Shocking!) anyway, which is the main focus of this here. I wanna know about the effects of a less ephemeral Menandrine-style empire.

 

[Masada]

Well Gents.

I'm looking around for a alt-hist to build a NES from. Since I'm currently aside from my sly wit, and my pulpit bashing not a functioning member of the community as of yet


General Guide:

I would be looking for more fragmented European control over Asia, with more Asian states.

Stipulations and general wishes:

Australia, New Zealand, and South East Asia:

Since the Antipodes are normally quite boring I have decided that since South Australia and the South Island of New Zealand were nearly claimed by France as colonies they should be in this NES. Bleh, I can't find the South Australian episode, but French settlers arrived to find the Union Jack flying The Waikato wars would probably not have happened, so New Zealand would be an interesting mix of British/French/Maori influence.

It's plausible that the Maccasans could have settled a series of enclaves in the North of Australia, perhaps bringing the Dutch in as well. The Bugi's are also a possible avenue for this kind of behaviour.

I would far prefer if the Dutch and British were less effective in Indonesia and Malaysia. This would broadly hold true of everything the Dutch and British might do in the region. Part of this could be pegged at perhaps increased French influence in the region at the cost of certain Frenchman running around the whole of Europe. A tile perhaps?

A weaker Dutch and British influence in the region might keep a large part of Malaysia and some of the more prickly bits of Indonesia fairly independent.

Nation Roundup

China will probably be measurably strong but still fragile, partly because its managed to partially pull itself back to together, without European help.

America would have a greater influence in the areas vacated by the other colonial powers, I'm looking at Japan, China, the Russian Far East and Korea. It also might make some additional nominal gains in South East Asia, Sultanate of Aceh was allegedly talking to the US before it got invaded about what who knows? I'm sure history can provide a few anecdotes to prop up an expanded America.

A France with a more colonial outlook, no Louisiana Purchase for instance.

A more gradual and less military orientated collapse of the Spanish Empire in favour of a slow slide into a Commonwealth of sorts. Some of the more aggressive regions might break links with the motherland totally but it will be more a "soft" landing.

A more aggressive militarily British Empire, with a greater focus on maintaining its existing colonies, and a little bit more of a mean streak. It won't be as large, or as influential as it would otherwise be in our timeline. A serious power, but not world dominating. It could be frustrated in some of its larger colonial efforts, in the Boer War, or in India for instance. Not to cripple it but to bring it down to size.

Germany might never have developed as a centralized state, it might still languishing as a series of States. Their Holy Roman Empire might still be a Holy Roman Empire, since a certain Frenchman might never have had the ability to exert his full force. An ethnically German dominated colony is also a possibility, the Barossa Valley in South Australia was populated by Silesians

Portugal might be slightly more functional than it would otherwise be, its colonies might not have abandoned it, and its internal situation might be measurably better. It would still be poor but it would not be a laughing stock.

Russia might just continue to plod along, expanding but generally not deviating much from its normal path.

Just a crude outline of what I would like out of a possible timeline I've now requested . The preferred start date would be the 1/1/1900.

 

[The Strategos]

America would have a greater influence in the areas vacated by the other colonial powers, I'm looking at Japan, China, the Russian Far East and Korea. It also might make some additional nominal gains in South East Asia, Sultanate of Aceh was allegedly talking to the US before it got invaded about what who knows? I'm sure history can provide a few anecdotes to prop up an expanded America.

A France with a more colonial outlook, no Louisiana Purchase for instance.

If America doesn't have the Louisiana Purchase, they don't have a west coast. If they don't have a west coast, how can they project power in East Asia?

 

[das]

I would be looking for more fragmented European control over Asia, with more Asian states.

Generally speaking you might want to work from the various failed modernisation efforts in the 17th-18th century Asian states (Constantine Phaulkon comes to mind). I notice that you didn't mention India, although it is the best possibly place for "more Asian states".

A France with a more colonial outlook, no Louisiana Purchase for instance.

Then again, for your scenario this may be key given the other things in there.

How important is the very existence of USA to you?

China will probably be measurably strong but still fragile, partly because its managed to partially pull itself back to together, without European help.

The earlier state-driven reforms (a bit like Japan's modernisation, ideologically: Eastern ideology with Western technology; the Self-Strengthening Movement or something like that) or an equivalent is probably what you have in mind here, right? Changing the dynasty would be a calamity in most situations, no matter how bad the Qing could get, since then the country would have to struggle through decades of civil war whilst being eyed by a very wide assortment of separatists, neighbours and Europeans.

Prince Gong for Emperor?

Russia might just continue to plod along, expanding but generally not deviating much from its normal path.

There was this guy named Pavel I; you might want to look into his madcap untenable colonial projects and such. His mother was not wholly opposed to some colonialism herself, and there were many later plans and opportunities alike.

More details are needed: when do you want the PoD to occur (or, rather, no later than when?)?

 

[The Strategos]

On a different topic my attempt at a map for my Japan althist, ~1800 CE.

Spoiler :

 

[silver 2039]

Japan colonizes Ceylon but not Indonesia, Malysia or Phillipenes before Spain? They would have to pass through to get there you know.

Also what caused the Portuguese to control the eastern coast rather than the western coast? In OTL they controlled the east because they wanted to dominate the Arabian sea trade which presumably still exists. It was also where DeGama first came to India. And places like Goa made fine ports. They would have to pass the eastern coast to get to the west.