Alternate History Thread V

[Mathalamus]

well the german people would still be there... it coudl range from the German Empire annexing the Austrian Empire (or vice versa...) to a series of really small states under Holy Rome. another ethnic group could rule an empire similar to Austria, or even Russia would own all of it. the possibilities are endless.

...thats also why im stuck on 1754. so many possibilities... so little creativity...

 

[Luckymoose]

well the german people would still be there... it coudl range from the German Empire annexing the Austrian Empire (or vice versa...) to a series of really small states under Holy Rome. another ethnic group could rule an empire similar to Austria, or even Russia would own all of it. the possibilities are endless.

...thats also why im stuck on 1754. so many possibilities... so little creativity...

So why didn't the Austrians ever succeed in becoming important? Why didn't they have a major role in the HRE? You should also make Russia the new Turkey.

What do you think of when you see this?

Spoiler :

 

[Mathalamus]

hmm.. im gonna have to research the HRE. well, the larger constituent states, ot make ot easier on myself.

whoops. i completely forgot the Turkish peoples could replace the Russians (particularly if the mongols or equivalent wrecks up everything). suffice it to say, i think an war oriented expansionalist power who may even be islam, is Europe's worst nightmare.

...until about the 1900s, assuming they have a large state.

 

[Luckymoose]

hmm.. im gonna have to research the HRE. well, the larger constituent states, ot make ot easier on myself.

whoops. i completely forgot the Turkish peoples could replace the Russians (particularly if the mongols or equivalent wrecks up everything). suffice it to say, i think an war oriented expansionalist power who may even be islam, is Europe's worst nightmare.

...until about the 1900s, assuming they have a large state.

What about the Welsh? Would they even come to prominence and raid western Europe? They could be troublesome under such a Byzantium-centric world.

 

[alex994]

I read the latest alt-hist update Dachs and I'm intrigued. I will find something to comment on once I get through all my math work this week

 

[spryllino]

Excellent as usual, Dachs.

Exuperantius was defeated a bit quickly perhaps? And why is there a rebellion going on on behalf of Candidianus given that he achieved almost no success?

 

[LittleBoots]

And why is there a rebellion going on on behalf of Candidianus given that he achieved almost no success?

And is dead? My guess is that the rebellion is using him as an excuse to seize an opportunity to rebel against a weakened Empire run by a little boy. I suppose they might have some loyalty to Candidianus for reinforcing the area?

Great installment Dachs

 

[Dachs]

Excellent as usual, Dachs.

Exuperantius was defeated a bit quickly perhaps?

69.

And why is there a rebellion going on on behalf of Candidianus given that he achieved almost no success?

And is dead? My guess is that the rebellion is using him as an excuse to seize an opportunity to rebel against a weakened Empire run by a little boy. I suppose they might have some loyalty to Candidianus for reinforcing the area?

Candidianus had plenty of time to use his patronage to fill appointments in the Gallic field armies. It's also a regional rebellion, but not in the sense that LB is talking about. Part of it is the usual problems between Gaul and Italy over office-filling and role in the government (the Gallic interests felt like they got shafted again). And another part of it is that the Thuringians are invading, and the rebels believe they are the only ones who can save Roman Gaul from the barbarians since Constantius is so young and inexperienced yada yada yada.

Also, Constantius IV is about my age in 586. So, young, but not that young. Almost sounds like Kōnstas II...

 

[Perfectionist]

Ah, finally. So, Rome's in trouble again; very interesting. Need to digest it for a bit, then hopefully I'll think of some decent comments.

Instead of focusing on the war-torn Mediterranean littoral for conquest, Taurinos believed that a more cost-effective solution would be to seek treasure in the Erythraian Sea, specifically trade with India.

And he decides that the way to do that is to reinforce the position of the Axumite and Arabian middlemen who actually carry on that trade? Or does your India mean 'Ethiopia', as it did for the Byzantines?

 

[Dachs]

Need to digest it for a bit, then hopefully I'll think of some decent comments. And he decides that the way to do that is to reinforce the position of the Axumite and Arabian middlemen who actually carry on that trade? Or does your India mean 'Ethiopia', as it did for the Byzantines?

He was insufficiently intelligent, or perhaps blinded by his confessional interests, to recognize that this course of action might in fact be damaging to his actual aims.

India means India.

 

[Thlayli]

I also had my differences with the umpteenth rebellion in Gaul, especially since Candidianus isn't listed as being from Gaul specifically and those guys usually support their own. If you retconned Candidianus as to being Gallic in origin, (or maybe I just missed that he was) I'd buy it.

 

[Dachs]

He doesn't have to be "from" Gaul at all, he just has to have supporters there that are high up in the local field army's hierarchy. Didn't you learn anything from the fifth century?

 

[Luckymoose]

I also had my differences with the umpteenth rebellion in Gaul, especially since Candidianus isn't listed as being from Gaul specifically and those guys usually support their own. If you retconned Candidianus as to being Gallic in origin, (or maybe I just missed that he was) I'd buy it.

I doubt it has very much to do with where he was from. It's more based on an excuse to rebel and protect their own asses while Consty is a little boy.

 

[Thlayli]

I doubt it has very much to do with where he was from. It's more based on an excuse to rebel and protect their own asses while Consty is a little boy.

1) Being Dachs' anklebiter will get you nowhere.

2) Patronage network or no, rebelling on behalf of a dead guy without a legitimate imperial candidate is just stupid, and I can't think of a historical period when that happened in Gaul.

 

[Luckymoose]

1) Being Dachs' anklebiter will get you nowhere.

2) Patronage network or no, rebelling on behalf of a dead guy without a legitimate imperial candidate is just stupid, and I can't think of a historical period when that happened in Gaul.

1.) Sure it will.

2.) I guess they'd rather succumb to barbarian hordes than do something about it, eh?

 

[Dachs]

2) Patronage network or no, rebelling on behalf of a dead guy without a legitimate imperial candidate is just stupid, and I can't think of a historical period when that happened in Gaul.

Happened in Gaul, maybe not. Happened in near-contemporary OTL Byzantine history, though. See: Narses.

"Legitimacy" doesn't really matter in the context of a twenty-year-old "dynasty", anyway.

 

[Thlayli]

Eh, it just strikes me as odd that the Gauls aren't even rebelling on behalf of a particular imperial candidate.

Explain to me how fighting against Thuringia and Italy at once will make them succumb to those barbarian hordes less quickly. It just seems supremely counter-intuitive. They didn't even ask Constantius for concessions before 'lolrevolt,' though I guess he might offer them, since concessions are what they're rebelling for.

 

[Luckymoose]

Eh, it just strikes me as odd that the Gauls aren't even rebelling on behalf of a particular imperial candidate.

Explain to me how fighting against Thuringia and Italy at once will make them succumb to those barbarian hordes less quickly.

Depends on Consty really.

 

[Dachs]

Eh, it just strikes me as odd that the Gauls aren't even rebelling on behalf of a particular imperial candidate.

Odd for you to make such strong pronouncements as to what they are rebelling in favor of when all that's been explicitly posted is that it's a pro-Candidianus rebellion.

Explain to me how fighting against Thuringia and Italy at once will make them succumb to those barbarian hordes less quickly. It just seems supremely counter-intuitive.

Narses, Constantinus "III", Gerontius, and Alexios Mousele were all pretty counterintuitive guys, I guess

 

[Thlayli]

In general I feel like the scope of the "crisis" was just a somewhat contrived attempt to put Rome on the back foot as a necessary counterbalance to the relatively positive end of the last two civil wars. Though the disasters in the East and Africa were perfectly reasonable.

Hopefully the Gallic rebellion is fairly resolvable, and since they aren't explicitly denying Constantius' legitimacy it seems like it might be.