New Start

[Cethegus]

So instead of independent countries, we would have democratically lead provinces under Roman rule? To be honest, I'm not enthusiastic about this idea. It just sounds like the countries will still be there as semi-autonomious entities rather than Roman provinces.

Then again... having Roman officials leading these countries and hopefully suppressing the rise of fanatical Christianity would lead to a whole different course of history. To me, Rome could keep its secular policy in its conquered lands, unlike the Orthodox East, to add more flavor in the mix. They're going to be the Western Republic and the Byzantine Empire, so naturally there should be national tensions between the two, especially if differing politics are at play.

I'm ready to accept it if it is to be represented more or less in that light. However, what I want to know is there going to be a background similiar to Next War? If so, I propose that the line of Roman emperors ended in the fall of the emperor before a heir could be secured (or a revolt) after which democracy was the only plausible option. Soviet Russia could maintain its lands after killing off their own Tzar, perhaps Rome could do the same 1500 years in advance.

One thing I want Kairob to keep in mind, for the sake of background. Strictly selected, inept political marriages were usual even in ancient Rome, so ending this trend in the assassination or premature depart of the King should have a major effect on history and how societies work. Perhaps the internal progress of the West and the conservative attitude of the East should have an attitude clash similiar to the British and American relations post American Revolution.

 

[Lean]

Well if they (The East and West) weren't at good terms with each other, say, even at war at the time the Arabs and Turks spawn, then it'll make it harder for the Eastern Empire to take them down, and they themselves might fall. Persia should still be around, no? With Western European Civs, what's to keep Rome in check? Oh, and should new religions be added, like Orthodoxy, for the Byzantines, in order to...increase tensions? Or would Christianity play a role at all?

 

[Zagoroth]

Wow, I just looked back at the forums and saw all these posts. You guys want Rome to develop into a representative democracy, as opposed to reverting back to their republic? The question is why would they change their government? Rome would have to be on the verge of disaster for an emperor to willingly give up some of his power.

Maybe the West decided to reorganize after the Empire was split? One way to keep the Empire, in the game, is to stop the spawning of the European civilizations. On the other hand they could still be used, but all be vassals to the Roman core Italy. If those were the two options which would you pick?

For the Huns. How about the Huns attacked the Eastern Roman Empire instead of the West?

 

[BurnEmDown]

Zagoroth, As I said it could be that a wise, influental man (who perhaps was a "fan" of some sort of Ancient Greek Democracy?) decided it was best for the empire to become a republic as it used to be, and further "up" the stability by giving the areas of his former empire a government of their own, thereby reducing the risk that some parts of the empire would try to cut themselves off completely.
I thought that the two Roman civs should remain in peace and good relations, since without the aid of the western world the eastern empire is doomed to collapse with all the invasions that's about to happen to them from all directions. Now, in this alt-history scenario it seems like the western world will blossom and be more advanced than Europe in our time-line, but to offset this I'm suggesting that the Scandinavian vikings, the Moors, and maybe the Russians be a lot more advanced and fearful than their historical counterpart.
For the Russians I think this is obvious: with no Huns that went ravaging in their lands (and perhaps some Russians joined them too) their civilization should form much earlier and have an easier time competing with the Europeans, they'll be a threat for the Western Republic since they'll want the rich lands of Germania.
The Vikings, they could be a constant threat to Britannia and the northern coasts of Gaul, while the Moors try to take Iberia.
So you see in this scenario the western world isn't doing all well and good while the Eastern Empire tries to survive from hordes of invaders, and also I had imagined that the western republic wouldn't try to advance so much in terms of technology, but only be advanced socially.
Ofc this is only a backstory in this scenario for Europe and the area, east Asia should also get a backstory of an alt-historical situation.
(an idea perhaps: with no (or significantly less) Huns to threaten China, the Chinese people didn't focus on military as much as they actually did, and one of the Japanese nations from before the unification managed to invade the eastern coast of China and establish a civilization of their own there? I'll try to write something with more details tomorrow maybe, if nobody uses this idea).

 

[T_F]

It's certainly an interesting idea, which I like. One of the requirements for the reinstitution of the Republic would be that whoever wants to do that both manages to defeat all aspiring emperors and get the senate to an actually competent level (even by Augustus they'd pretty much gotten used to rubber-stamping). It would take quite the man to do that, and to realize that the provinces need their own governmental entities other than proconsules. Still, it seems at least plausible, and I like it.
(Perhaps at some point Roman central authority could collapse, leaving a bunch of little republics and maybe a monarchy here or there that's the ashes of one of those republics. I can see some internal conflict leading to a sort of Roman version of the US Civil War.)

 

[Lean]

And the East would be on the sidelines of said Civli War? Or would it be the enitre Roman infistructure collapsing, not just the Western half? Just the Western Empire descending into Civil War would be more apporperate, seeing as it sets the stage for the East to stay as a Monarchy...

Or there could be something completly different? Something along the lines of the Roman Empire dissolving, but not collapsing, as it did in OTL. Frankia controlls all what is France, the Low Countries, and the Eastern Bank of the Rhine, Ispania controlls Iberia, and faces rebellion in it's Western cities (A sort of Portugal), Germania controll all areas the Franks haven't claimed (All areas after the Easter Rhine Valley, including parts of Poland, Egypt taking all African Possessions, the 'Eastern Roman Empire' Taking the Middle Eastern Possessions, plus the Balkins, and Roma, still claiming controll over all territories, confined to the Italian Penninsulia, planning to take back what they view is still theirs.

 

[kairob]

Personally I wanted to rule the Roman Empire, not the fragmented union of ex-roman republics...

 

[T_F]

@Kairob: I just don't know if that long of a Roman Empire is plausible. Unless it fragments and is then reunified, à la China. (Another possibility.)

Would we assume Islam and Arabia still pop up ~600? That would screw over a lot of the Eastern Empire.

 

[Lean]

IT would, it would indeed. Anyone think my idea is worth anything?

 

[T_F]

It sounds interesting. You mention 'Germania' - does that mean a more stable Rome would go and finally conquer Germany, or is that just a Romanized name for an otherwise Germanic state? And why does Aegyptus get all of Africa? I'm pretty sure there would be a separate African state. (Rest of it seems good, disregarding the Arabs - they'd end up with at least the Middle East, and quite possibly up to their OTL borders.)

 

[Lean]

Yes, Rome would be able to conquer Germany. As for Aegyptus, I figured it would serve as a place holder of sorts. I suppose we could, in theory, put Novo Carthage there, to serve as a rival for Ispania, who is dealign with the Pourtugese Rebellion, while Aegyptus is Byzantine's other enemy (The other Persia, of course). As for the Arabs, you're right, they could, atleast, retain their OTL borders. A fractured Eastern Empire could either have two events: A farther expanded Arabs, possibly in controll of Southern Europe, or two: A Byzantine-Persian Coillition that effectivly crushes the Arabs and divides their territory.

 

[Zagoroth]

I feel like having a dissolved Roman Empire, with the separate Roman states, would amount to the same that happened historically in the context of RFC. I like the idea of having a Roman Empire remain in power of Western Europe and having to face more powerful Russia and Vikings.

 

[BurnEmDown]

OK here's some more details about east Asia: The Japanese nation (lets call them Yamato from now own to make it easier) who conquered the south-eastern shores of China, managed to keep their newly acquired cities after signing peace with China, and also agreed that no aggressive actions should be taken against China by the Yamato people. China lost most of its glory, with half of its country gone. This encouraged the Mongolians to attack China much earlier, 400 years earlier, but without proper leadership and no tactics, they merely managed to harass several border towns and the Chinese army managed to fortify the borders to the north, effectively removing all hope of Mongolian invasion of China.
The Mongols then decided to expand westward. They managed in the following 200 years to gain a foothold in the middle east by slowly expanding westward until they reached the borders of the Parthian Empire. The empire was on the brink of collapse, with all the fighting with the Byzantines, and so the Mongols took them over with their swift raiders, their eyes still to the west, the Byzantine Empire were their new rivals.

More backstory about the mid-east and the med:
The Arabs in this world were not able to breach the Byzantines defenses, since the Byzantines were more experienced with fighting due to their wars with the Parthians. The Arabs decided to travel west, through the Red sea and on to Africa, where they managed to lay waste to the southern are of Aegyptos. The Arabs continued their march westward through the Saharan desert, where they met the Moors and managed to convert them to Islam. The Arabs and the Moors where now unified under Islam, calling themselves the Islamic Caliphate of the Moors. The Parthians managed to annex the former cities of the Arabs, Mecca, Medina and other major cities (There were still Arabs there but they decided to join the Parthian Empire), which means that the Parthians were also converted to the Muslim religion, they now had an even greater desire to destroy the Byzantines, the enemies of the Faith.
So in civ terms, Mecca and maybe another city should spawn as an independent state, being the Holy city of Islam, shortly after that small groups of barbarian Camel archers should spawn near Jerusalem and southern Egypt. Some years after than the Moors should spawn in northern Africa with Islam.
In Asia, a bunch of troops should spawn in southern China and be automatically at war with China (the same way the Turks spawn in the middle of the Byzantine Empire) and take some cities. No cities should flip, and the troops should be enough to take 2-3 cities on average (the southern ones are really good so they should be enough for a civ). They should be able to sign peace with China soon after they take a few cities (perhaps major stability penalties for them if they take cities in northern China to stop them from doing so?).
Mongolians spawn as usual (only 400 years earlier) but shouldn't have enough units to take over China, and get more bonuses from slowly expanding westward, preparing for the Invasion of the Parthian Empire.
So far I've only covered the years from 600 AD to about 1000 AD. I've added 1 more civ to this game (Yamato) (the Moors could be re-designed Arabs) so it could use up the Mayan or Ethiopian space (this scenario shouldn't have a 3000 BC start as nothing is changed until ~400 AD anyway).
For the next 400 years it could be about the discovery of the new world and the end of the middle ages.

 

[Rallas]

I agree with having a mostly unified Roman Empire that way we can see something different then the common Europe in RFC. These are civs that came to the top of my mind when thinking of this world.

Some civs i think we should have in this Roman World.

The Roman Empire(Controlled either by the Roman Emperors or the Pope)

Byzantine Empire(Controlled by Byzantine Emperors possibly the Theodosian Dynasty?)

Parthian Empire

Northern Chinese Dynasty(Controls mostly Northern China to stop the spread of Russia eastward)

Southern Chinses Dynasty(Controls Southern China, can compete with India and possibly an Indonesian Civ for the Vietnam, Bangladesh, Laos region.)

Gupta Empire(Can Be either friendly with the Romans or at war with them as the Romans try to conquer the port cities in India they once traded with?)

Aztec Empire(We can either have them meet Rome or have the discovery of the New World be far later then in real history creating an even stronger Aztec empire that controls up to around Lousianna.)

Ghana Empire(Can be an African Challenger to the Roman Empire as it expands south)

Mongol Empire(Can stop the Russian advance east and weaken Northern China if China was not
unified by the time of its rise.)

Russian Empire(Not really any idea on ruler or stuff but can control what the Soviet Union controlled during Cold War(cept Germany) and be a challenge to both Western and Eastern Rome.)

Scotland(Split from Vikings controls Scotland and Ireland. Is a challenger to Western Rome in the British Isles.)

Vikings(Challenger to Rome)

Concerning religions

Catholicism(Rome's Religion)
Orthodoxy(Can possibly be split between Greek and Russian to cause tension between Russia and Eastern Rome or just one orthodoxy to create tension between Western and Eastern Rome)
Confucism(For Northern China)
Daoism(for Southern China to further make a rift between the two dynasties.)
Islam?(If we add the Arab and Turkish civs then mabye otherwise i would think Eastern Rome would crush this religious uprising. Could possibly make Parthia found it so that way there is tension between Eastern Rome and Parthia)
Judaism?

 

[Zagoroth]

Its a shame that it would have to start with the human player already under control of the Roman Empire, but we have to use the 600 C.E. start for the Byzantines. It would be great if we could find only one variable to create an interesting scenario. Personally I would find it annoying to create multiple occasions where something unhistorical happened. So the question is what other interesting things could happen from the Huns not becoming too powerful.

 

[kairob]

The smallest change can have far reaching consequences. Here is how it could change different regions:

Rome
Would not have fallen.

Middle East
With a stronger Rome the Arabs would not have been able to invade the Middle East and North Africa; this means that the Sassinid Empire would be much stronger when the Mongols arrived and might have been able to drive them back. Leading to a strong Persia, but no Arabia.

I have put Japan and China below, these would be the least affected, but I put some changes here anyway.

China
The Mongol defeat at the hands of the Persians and the loss of their main army allowed the Song Dynasty to hold out against the Yuan Dynasty and eventually reconquer China. The Song Dynasty differed to the Yuan Dynasty in many ways. Here is a quote (sorry about its source but I dont know much about the Far East).

They had able military officers such as Yue Fei and Han Shizhong. The government sponsored massive shipbuilding and harbor improvement projects, and the construction of beacons and seaport warehouses in order to support maritime trade abroad and the major international seaports, such as Quanzhou, Guangzhou, and Xiamen, that were sustaining China's commerce.

Japan
I have been told countless times by a friend of mine that the Japanese didn't use horses until after the failed Mongol invasion. If this is true they would not have had horses, not sure how big an affect this would have had though.

Turks
Would Buddhist or Pagan Turks still have come down from the Steppe to attack the
Middle East? If you think it's fun then I dont see why they wouldn't. If you don't like the idea leave them out and blame it on causality.

India
I would quite like to see a Buddhist India becoming a major trading and maritime power, situated nicely between the Orient and the West.

Americas
Would the Aztec and Inca have survived with their empires to the modern day? Could they have advanced in technology enough to defend their lands? Could they have discovered the old world instead of the other way around? I think that they should at least have a damn good shot at it! Without European invasion they could have been a lot stronger if they remained undiscovered for 200 more years.

And the North American Indians, would they have managed to form a a large confederation capable of defending itself?

Also who would discover the Americas? China, Japan, India or Rome?

Africa
Ethiopia could be an important military and comercial centre. Situated next to both Persia and Rome (who would be in a sort of cold war), they could act as ficilitators of trade from one to the other. They would also be a valuable ally to either side if war broke out.

Secondly, would the Songhai or Zulus have managed to stay strong without European interference?

Australia
I cant see the Aboriginis developing a unified state here, but if Britain didn't colonise here, who would have? Our expansionist China? India? Our more politicaly savvy Ethiopia getting lost in a storm trying to get to China?

 

[steampunk1880]

So nobody cares for a Years of Rice and Salt-esque thing then? I suppose it would have ended up similar to the Roman thing but with Islamic states in Europe instead of Classical. Are you keeping the imperial cult religion for the two Romanii then?

 

[Rallas]

I would say no because if we are going with the invasion of the Huns not happening then by then Rome already is devoted to Christianity.

 

[BurnEmDown]

I'd imagine in my scenario that the Moors would discover western north america and south america, while the chinese or japanese discover the eastern coast of north america and south america. It would happen later than it did in history, so the Aztecs, Incas and northern american indians would be stronger and will be a lot harder to invade.
As for the Indians (from India, not north america ) and Ethiopians, I really don't know if they should be in. Perhaps the Indians should re-unify themselves (should be a lot easier than history since the Mongols didn't invade them, or maybe only tried later on?)
The Turks should be in, I'd like to see them as "Islam's savior", who managed to break the Byzantines and rise up from their ashes (as they kinda did historically).
The western Romans I think should be Christians, as should the Byzantine Empire, the Norse and the Russians. Altho a "great schism" of sort should happen which will divide the west (western republic and norse) from the east (russia and eastern empire).
I'm not sure if the European nations rise up from declare total independence, but if they do it should be all of them at once and it should be a major world event, possibly involving the first world war in this alt-history scenario.

 

[KaiserBenjamin]

I like the Years of Rice and Salt scenario myself, but that's just me.