Alternate History Thread V
- Thread starter Dachs
- Start date
Thlayli
Le Pétit Prince
You must have loved OTL Britain then. 
Being the periodic religious pedant that I am, I'd like to ask whether all the Christianized 'barbarian' groups are Chalcedonians or not.
And yes this is probably the last unimpaired comment you'll see from me for some time. :3
Being the periodic religious pedant that I am, I'd like to ask whether all the Christianized 'barbarian' groups are Chalcedonians or not.
And yes this is probably the last unimpaired comment you'll see from me for some time. :3
Um, which ones did you have in mind?
Dreadnought
Deity
Oh no! Rome is still crumbling, bit by bit. 
Any idea what's gonna happen with the Muslims strike out in force?
Any idea what's gonna happen with the Muslims strike out in force?
Dreadnought
Deity
Good. Besides, how would they take on that Persian blob?
Thlayli
Le Pétit Prince
Mostly the immortal race of sentient barbarians allegedly waiting in Magna Germania and Gaul.
Kentharu
Zebra Commander
Will there be anything coming out of the Hejaz area any time soon? Or will you pretty much be skipping over it.
Kraznaya
Princeps
5c2 + 2c1
Ah. More or less, yes. Arianism hasn't been a serious force for a hundred years.
Now, now, that would be telling. Still, given the amount of attention that the Hijaz got last update, I'm sure there will be something out there of interest.
Huh?
I am sure it has been beaten to death, but I still find the what if Washington had become king a fun discussion.
Just came up in a discussion with a buddy of mine, course then we quickly hit the quagmire of who would have succeeded him and how would congress/parlimentary system be setup or the Gentry/Aristocracy.
EDIT - This is of course completely aside from the plausibility of such a suggestion.
Just came up in a discussion with a buddy of mine, course then we quickly hit the quagmire of who would have succeeded him and how would congress/parlimentary system be setup or the Gentry/Aristocracy.
EDIT - This is of course completely aside from the plausibility of such a suggestion.
Luckymoose
The World is Mine
It depends if it's an elected monarchy(more likely). I that was the case then you simply have elections for a life long president, which could and possibly would have forms of late life regency or various requirements on duties to prevent halts in the system.
Personally I leaned to an elected monarchy to avoid the succession issue entirely, but my friend leaned towards more a what if America created a true aristocratic system. He tried to make it like adopting Britain's system with American tweaks.
Doesn't the US have an elected monarchy already? 
So, um, how would they go about creating this thing? Honestly, I think the whole country would probably end up like Brazil or something if Washington went for the dictator route at the end of the rebellion.
So, um, how would they go about creating this thing? Honestly, I think the whole country would probably end up like Brazil or something if Washington went for the dictator route at the end of the rebellion.
Yeah Brazil is probably a good analogy for a hereditary situation. As I said the plausibility is very low that this would have happened, or even if it did that it would have lasted long. I have a hard time imagining a hereditary monarchy in the US after the rebellion, but even if that had been the result it wouldn't have lasted very long due to the immediate successtion issue.
I was imagining the President/King position being a lifetime elected position with the possibility of removal from office by a vote. Or maybe a term limit of like 40-50 years to prevent senility.
I was imagining the President/King position being a lifetime elected position with the possibility of removal from office by a vote. Or maybe a term limit of like 40-50 years to prevent senility.
The arguments against it occurring are fairly easy to list. For one, Lysandros was operating on the end of a gradually shortening leash. Suspicion against him and his aims was rising in Sparta, especially after Samos' oligarchs renamed the Heraia festival in his honor, leading to accusations that Lysandros considered himself a god. Lysandros' freedom of maneuver was also severely restricted by the Iranian succession crisis that in OTL evolved into the civil war that culminated at Kounaxa, which stood a good chance of robbing him of the assistance of his patron Kurush and all his funds. Hence the need for a rapid agreement with the Athenians, which Theramenes doubtlessly played upon during their mutual meeting in 404.
Theramenes could also very easily bring up the point that the Boiotians had been acting much too independently since the beginning of the war, and that completely destroying one of their rivals would allow the Boiotians to become so powerful that they would be impossible to control. Thebes was then dominated by something of an anti-Spartan faction anyway; it would hardly make sense to appease them in such a way.
As to probable subsequent events, um, it's kinda hard to calculate. I have a hard time imagining that Athens would not be resettled by some city or other, and possibly by Athenian exiles, supported by whomever won the civil war in Iran or by a subsequent Spartan regime opposed to Lysandros. Subsequent struggles between Sparta and Korinthos/Thebes would probably be delayed somewhat by the destruction of Athens - although they might just as well have been increased due to the lack of an Attic intermediary body. Sparta's land empire would probably be about as untenable as it was historically, but its naval empire would be peerless, which would probably lead to its estrangement from the Iranians within a few decades and an Iranian-backed Athenian empire or an islanders' league replacing Spartan power in the Aegean.
Thanks.
Which sources tell us about the naming of the Heraea after Lysander, the succession crisis in Persia being underway four years before Cunaxa, and the anti-Spartan faction in Thebes at the time (none of which I can find in Xenophon or Diodorus)? Or are the latter two the deductions of modern historians on the basis of the sources?
Also, according to Xenophon and Lysias, there was a large amount of delay while Theramenes and Lysander were not only was able to delay in their meeting when Theramenes went to Lysander but, indeed, Lysander, after four months of delay, sent Theramenes for another conference in Sellasia with the ephors, whom he said were the only ones empowered to give terms; Lysander, as far as I can see from Xenophon, wasn't by any means solely responsible for the terms of surrender, and was not trying to and did not succeed in making a quick peace. So yeah, I'm sure you're right, but tell me why please, because I'm interested, and what you say is at odds with my understanding.
Also do you think there would have been serious long-term consequences on Greek culture and the formation of the Hellenistic world and ultimately the Roman world? Do you think the absence or diaspora of Athenian intellectuals would have caused a retardation of cultural progress? Also, might Eleusis have supplanted Athens as the main city in the region (and there's no reason why the Athenian establishment shouldn't move to Eleusis as the oligarchs did after the reign of the Thirty IIRC) or is there something special about Athens's fame or geographical position that would have prevented that? Thirdly, presumably a large section of the Attic rural population was actually within the Long Walls in 405 BC, wasn't it (or had they abandoned herding the entire population within the Walls during Peloponnesian invasions by then)? Would a Spartan razing of Athens not have caused the death and/or enslavement not only of the urban population but also of a large segment of the rural population of Attica, making it very difficult for any recolonised Athens to become powerful for a long time, because even in the presence of a recolonised city the Athenian state would not be nearly as prosperous or powerful as before?
Which sources tell us about the naming of the Heraea after Lysander, the succession crisis in Persia being underway four years before Cunaxa, and the anti-Spartan faction in Thebes at the time (none of which I can find in Xenophon or Diodorus)? Or are the latter two the deductions of modern historians on the basis of the sources?
Also, according to Xenophon and Lysias, there was a large amount of delay while Theramenes and Lysander were not only was able to delay in their meeting when Theramenes went to Lysander but, indeed, Lysander, after four months of delay, sent Theramenes for another conference in Sellasia with the ephors, whom he said were the only ones empowered to give terms; Lysander, as far as I can see from Xenophon, wasn't by any means solely responsible for the terms of surrender, and was not trying to and did not succeed in making a quick peace. So yeah, I'm sure you're right, but tell me why please, because I'm interested, and what you say is at odds with my understanding.
Also do you think there would have been serious long-term consequences on Greek culture and the formation of the Hellenistic world and ultimately the Roman world? Do you think the absence or diaspora of Athenian intellectuals would have caused a retardation of cultural progress? Also, might Eleusis have supplanted Athens as the main city in the region (and there's no reason why the Athenian establishment shouldn't move to Eleusis as the oligarchs did after the reign of the Thirty IIRC) or is there something special about Athens's fame or geographical position that would have prevented that? Thirdly, presumably a large section of the Attic rural population was actually within the Long Walls in 405 BC, wasn't it (or had they abandoned herding the entire population within the Walls during Peloponnesian invasions by then)? Would a Spartan razing of Athens not have caused the death and/or enslavement not only of the urban population but also of a large segment of the rural population of Attica, making it very difficult for any recolonised Athens to become powerful for a long time, because even in the presence of a recolonised city the Athenian state would not be nearly as prosperous or powerful as before?
TheLizardKing
Let's talk Michelle.
To continue discussion from the NES development thread, Dachs, in what ways, short of having the original states break up post revolution, could you forsee the United States of America split into 3-4 nations, rather then the commonly overdone Confederate States vs. Northern States?
Similar threads
