Alternate History Ideas and Discussion

WolfBear

Well-known member
Through Iran and Turkey.British could do so in 19th century,but why? canal in Egypt was better.Ships always take more then trains.
Russia try that,becouse they could be cut off from seas - no danger for England.

I was thinking more along the lines of Germany aiming to do this, but if Germany will become a British ally, then this problem will become less severe.

And you also need to cross either Afghanistan or British India after Persia to get to China.

The Arabic numerals didn't exist yet, so that would be a bit of a problem. 'Zero' did exist, but was only used as a place-holder. To use it was you'd want it to be used, it needs to develop into a number in its own right, so it can be employed usefully in calculus. This only happened somewhere between AD 400 and AD 500 in OTL, so some developments would be needed there, as well.




Britain actively tried to create the Cape-to-Cairo railroad, and although far more nebulous, the notion of Cape-to-Singapore was certainly there. This would allow the British overland route to largely encirle the Indian Ocean.

Indochina is actually the major obstacle, since (as we see in OTL) the least impractical thing to do is to cut west from Southern Burma to Bangkok, then Saigon, and then along the Vietnamese coast. This is a huge diversion, in terms of overall distance, but it's more practical than trying an inland route across the mountains.

Realistically speaking, Cape-to-Singapore has merit, but from Singapore onward, it's more practical to just go by ship under any given circumstance.

The major obstacle for Cape-to-Singapore is Persia. I think that any ATL scenario that has Britain going for some workable version of Imperial federation and winning (or, possibly, averting) the Great War can quite realistically get you this result. Southern Persia could realistically be turned into a perment sphere of influence, absent the huge losses of the war, and then the rail project could be constructed over a few decades. I think that by the 1940s, you'd realistically have Cape-to-Singapore.

Who gets French Indochina in the event that of a German-British-Japanese coalition defeating the French in an alt-WWI?
 

WolfBear

Well-known member
Not that actively - it was more a political slogan than anything. Never bothered to build the North Rhodesia to Tanganika nor Kenya to Sudan bits..

I know I've seen a nifty RR map somewhere ...
Trans-Asian-Railway-Network.png


If you can't squint enough - red is 1520mm, green is 1435mm, grey is 1676mm, and the colour which shall remain nameless in Indochina is 1000mm. Orange - as well as japan - is 1067mm.

On the positive side - it is possible to run dual gauge (i.e. three rails) lines where 1435mm is combined with either 1000 or 1676mm.

No Afghan railroads. That just shows how backwards Afghanistan still is.

'AHC: Create a European Union-style confederation without one or both World Wars'

Is having the CPs win World War I the most realistic way of achieving this goal? Also, is there any other realistic way to achieve this goal?
 

Skallagrim

Well-known member
I know I've seen a nifty RR map somewhere ...
It's a nice map, although this ne ultimately provides more detail and clarity:

World_RR_Gauge_Map.agr.png



I'm not really sure what it's supposed to prove, though. Except of course that there really should have been an international conference to determine one universal standard gauge. Or that Europeans should at least have enforced standard gauge in all their colonies. (Of course, many railroads hadn't been built yet, so if we have a POD of Imperial Federation happening around the turn of the century, then standard gauge being made the immutable norm throughout could realistically be a part of that.)


Who gets French Indochina in the event that of a German-British-Japanese coalition defeating the French in an alt-WWI?
Depends on the circumstances of the scenario. I've previously suggested an ATL wherein Germany allies with Britain on the basis of (basically) "Germany gets the continent, and Britain gets ALL the colonies". I still think that's a viable partnership, uniting the foremost sea power and the foremost land power of this ATL into a profitable partnership.
 

WolfBear

Well-known member
Depends on the circumstances of the scenario. I've previously suggested an ATL wherein Germany allies with Britain on the basis of (basically) "Germany gets the continent, and Britain gets ALL the colonies". I still think that's a viable partnership, uniting the foremost sea power and the foremost land power of this ATL into a profitable partnership.

Would Japan be willing to let Britain have French Indochina?
 

WolfBear

Well-known member
'AHC: Have the countries of the former Austria-Hungary hate each other as much as Russians and Ukrainians currently do'

This seems quite a challenge, no? I mean, Hungary did take Romanian territory during WWII but this was quickly reversed and ultimately feelings ended up not being too hurt by this. If Hungary tried to do anything similar to any of its neighbors in the post-Cold War era, it would quickly get curb-stomped by NATO, so the sheer level of damage that would be inflicted on relations between Hungary and its neighbors might not be that severe in the long(er)-run since Hungary will simply experience regime change and be forced to pay reparations to its neighbors afterwards. Even without NATO, the Great Powers should obviously still be strong enough to control Hungarian bullying and revanchism without any serious problems since Hungary, unlike Russia, does not have nukes.
 

Skallagrim

Well-known member
Would Japan be willing to let Britain have French Indochina?
"Let"?

Japan is in no position to issue any demands here. Anglo-German alliance, in fact, means a very short Great War. Afterwards, Britain will be able to stabilise its preferred regime in China, and Japan will be instructed to content itself with a concession, and ownership of Korea and Taiwan. (Presumably, conquest of Manchuria will also effectively be allowed -- just so long as Japan stays out of China proper, which will henceforth be primarily under British influence, with recognition for any concessions towards allied nations.) The Japanese having any say about Indochina in this scenario is laughable.
 

WolfBear

Well-known member
"Let"?

Japan is in no position to issue any demands here. Anglo-German alliance, in fact, means a very short Great War. Afterwards, Britain will be able to stabilise its preferred regime in China, and Japan will be instructed to content itself with a concession, and ownership of Korea and Taiwan. (Presumably, conquest of Manchuria will also effectively be allowed -- just so long as Japan stays out of China proper, which will henceforth be primarily under British influence, with recognition for any concessions towards allied nations.) The Japanese having any say about Indochina in this scenario is laughable.

I was just wondering because I was wondering if the Japanese could get to French Indochina before the Brits could. Though if they do this without British consent, then this would be the end for their alliance.
 

WolfBear

Well-known member
In a democratic non-Communist Greater Russia, could we see parliamentary alliances between the "Intermarium" region and Muslim-majority regions?
 

Zyobot

Just a time-traveling robot stranded on Earth.
‘US-Made WH40K Equivalent’.

There are, to my knowledge, no American versions out there IOTL. Or, at least, none nearly as popular or widespread as the real thing (which is what I’m looking for with this POD).
 
Last edited:

WolfBear

Well-known member
‘US-Made WH40K Equivalent’.

There are, to my knowledge, no American versions out there IOTL. Or, at least, none nearly as popular or widespread as the real thing (which is what I’m looking for with this POD).

Maybe Richard Garfield could have designed something similar to this if he would have been in the mood? ;)


I don't know if it's really his style, but he could have adapted, I suppose.

'AHC: Have Romania still eventually unite with both Transylvania and Bukovina in a WWI CP victory TL'
 

Skallagrim

Well-known member
Very late reply, but:

I've been doing some reading recently for an 'East is West' scenario, and here's what I came up with.

450s - Huns/Hunno-Goths overrun/settle must of Europe -- see my post from earlier this month.

The Hunno-Goths remain a blocking presence at the eastern end of the Eurasian steppe, limiting westward migration, so the Utigurs &co remain further east and so on, the important part being that the eastern part of the Gokturks remains more settled. The Six Dynasties period draws to a close as IOTL, and just like IOTL Wen of Sui pits the sons of one of the khagans off of each other to try and break up the Gokturks. This blows up in his face, as the Gokturks are less dispersed and so the civil war is over sooner and the horde survives intact, one of the khagans unifying it and then turning on Wen to legitimize himself/prove he's not a puppet. Goguryeo then jumps in to kick the Sui while they're down, Sui raises more taxes/levies/conscripts to fend them off, fails, and then collapses in a series of popular revolts similar to OTL but 30 years earlier (c.585).

With Sui distracted fighting the Turks/Koreans, Southern Chen limps along until their northern rivals collapse. With much of the north gone over to peasant rebels and warlords, Chen creeps northwar, gradually absorbing the north over two decades of fighting. This brings them into conflict with the Turks and Koreans; Chen's armies sucked IOTL, and with the central state struggling to tax much of the empire the logical response is to create military feudatories to exert control/fend off the barbarians. These feudatories quickly expand their power at the expense of the central state, and by the mid-7th century Chen goes down in flames (probably after an overly ambitious emperor tries to move the capital north to exert power there, only to be cut off from his support base by northern rebels).

This leaves an interesting state of affairs. Similar to the Five Dynasties and Ten Kingdoms of OTL, the Northern Plains (the most populous/productive region) is a thunderdome of warlords that quickly mediatizes into a revolving door of dynasties as the Turks, Koreans and local warlords play kingmaker. I'll refer to these states as Chang'an, as this is the traditional capital and likely seat of power for many. The important part is that the Chang'an/Northern state, which IOTL was the powerbase of most reunifying dynasties, remains too turmoiled/wartorn to reconquer the south. The South, meanwhile, is ruled by a bunch of different minor states/kingdoms/tribal entities, which are too weak to reunify the region/would get dogpiled if they did and are in the grip of near-constant, but limited conflict.

The southern regions were OTL the chief centers of trade and production during this period. With constant wars burning through money, the Southern states have a strong incentive to build up production and export as much as they can, and eventually to establish trading and political ties with outside states to strengthen themselves/maximize state profits. OTL, periods of 'benign neglect' were the only time China underwent periods of economic inovation and development, and the atmosphere of the South is very much 'succeed or die'. With no overbearing state to crack down on change for the hell of it, South China undergoes a technological and economic boom a la the 5Dynasties/10Kingdoms or Former Song from around 800 or so. The implications of this are immense in and of itself, and I think that it might very well lead to the development of maritime traditions and proto-industrial economy...

TLDR; The Turks/Koreans kill the Sui Dynasty, another weak dynasty takes over and explodes, North China is dominated by barbarians/civil war, South China is dominated by petty trading states that compete hard and produces a climate of technological and economic innovation that leads to an Industrial Revolution c.1000ish.
I like this scenario a lot. This direction for China is very interesting. My only caveat here that I don't believe an industrial revolution would be plausible that rapidly. If we consider that something like a movable type printing press was, in OTL, invented in China around AD 1050, then the issues become clear. In OTL Europe, it was introduced 400 years later. It still took over three centuries after that before the industrial revolution really took off. I mention this, because inventions like this -- which aided the rapid dissemination of knowledge -- were essential in facilitating these possibilities.

Let's suppose that the "technological and economic boom (...) from around 800 or so" that occurs in the South happens to produce the movable printing press some 200 years early, around AD 850 or thereabouts. Add three centuries, and an industrial revolution around AD 1150 might be plausible. It's certainly pushing it a bit, giving them an "everything just happens to come together fortuitously" kind of scenario... but that can be justified. If you want to keep it a bit more realistic, though, and allow for a few set-backs and dead ends, then you might add one or two centuries. (For instance, have the movable type printing press invented in AD 950, and then have the industrial revolution kick off around AD 1250-1300. Nobody could dispute the realistic possibility of such a scenario, given the circumstances that the TL has produced.)


Also, it occured to me that these wanked Huns would likely do a great deal of raiding in Iran, both as the one *mostly* unpillaged region in their range and because of a desire to avenge previous defeats. Most of these raids would've been in the Caucasus or Khorasan/North-Central Iran. At this time, the Sassanians were ruling a sort of 'hegemonic' empire, with the state struggling against a strong nobility concentrated on the plateau; I think that desire for protection would cause a reluctant abandonment of independence and subsequently a reformed, centralized/stronger Sassanian Persia. Alternatively, attempts to reform in such a way could alienate the Seven Great Houses and spark a civil war or national collapse, with the Sassanians surviving in Mesopotamia & becoming increasingly dependant on local Aramean-speaking Nestorians until they convert to secure their support, then either persisting as a buffer or reconquering Persia proper. I favor the latter because it seems the most interesting.

With the HGE on the Byzantines' other flank, the ERE seems to be in for a very bad time. Not to mention all the ramifications this has on India...

Thoughts?
I do have doubts about some of the premises here. For starters, the notion of the wanked Huns doing a lot of raiding doesn't strike me as plausible. These Huns are basically doing to Europe what some Northern invaders did to China: by invading an conquering it, they become it. This means they'll soon see their centre of gravity shifted somewhat to the West, and they'll become thoroughly involved in the governance of a very sedentary society. The days of the steppe raider are well and truly behind them. Sure, they'll extend further East than any OTL European power did. Sure, they'll no doubt retain a highly mobile cavalry on their Eastern flank. But this will be mostly a defensive cohort, rather than a raiding force. Their task will be to encircle, cut off and eliminate raiders who attack the Empire. Some exceptions notwithstanding, the Empire itself will presumably not be doing much raiding. (Empires don't raid; they expand. What starts as a punitive counter-raid inevitably leads to vassalisation.)

In short: I think we might imagine a hybrid of the Holy Roman Empire and Kievan' Rus, with some Roman organising principles adopted into the frame-work, and that's how an Empire like this might look and function.

This does tend to alter the relationship with Persia, whivh means the incentives and pressures dominating events there might be different than you had imagined. (Although the Sassanids attempting reform could still quite plausibly lead to the civil war and imperial break-up that you suggested.)
 

Buba

A total creep
What if in 1913 Bulgarian leadership gets cold feet or a dose of realism (take your pick) and does not assault neither Serbia nor Greece. The borders are drawn more or less as per the Treaty of Bukaresht, with Bulgaria - besides gains to the south - also retaining south Dobruja and most of eastern Thrace.
Hence come 1914 Bulgaria's border with Turkey is along the Midia-Enos line as on the upper map:
423px-Balkan_Wars_Boundaries.jpg


How might this affect Entente overtures (in OTL lukewarm) towards Sofia in 1914/15?
Mind you, Adrianople in Bulgaria does not affect Ottoman logistics in the Gallipoli campaign, as supplies went by ship or ox cart, there being no RR to the area.
I'd imagine that no 2nd Balkan War means slightly less bad blood between Sofia and Belgrade.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: ATP

ATP

Well-known member
What if in 1913 Bulgarian leadership gets cold feet or a dose of realism (take your pick) and does not assault neither Serbia nor Greece. The borders are drawn more or less as per the Treaty of Bukaresht, yet with Bulgaria retains south Dobruja and most of eastern Thrace.
Hence come 1914 Bulgaria's border with Turkey is along the Midia-Enos line as on the upper map:
423px-Balkan_Wars_Boundaries.jpg


How might this affect Entente overtures (in OTL lukewarm) towards Sofia in 1914/15?
Mind you, Adrianople in Bulgaria does not affect Ottoman logistics in the Galipolli campaign, as supplies went by ship or ox cart, there being no RR to the area.
I'd imagine that no 2nd Balkan WQar means slightly less bad blood betwen Sofia and Belgrade.

I think,that Bulgary would attack Turcs in 1916,and help Allies beat them.Result - if they made Straits free for ships in 1916,no revolution,if not - only change is Turkey destroyed after WW1,with armenian and kurdish states created there.

WW2 - soviets could try take over Armenia ,Kurds and rump Turkey.
Stronger Bulgary could not enter war at all,and defeat itself from soviets if they attack.

So,either much better/no revolution/ world,or slighty better/free Bulgary/
 

stevep

Well-known member
What if in 1913 Bulgarian leadership gets cold feet or a dose of realism (take your pick) and does not assault neither Serbia nor Greece. The borders are drawn more or less as per the Treaty of Bukaresht, with Bulgaria - besides gains to the south - also retaining south Dobruja and most of eastern Thrace.
Hence come 1914 Bulgaria's border with Turkey is along the Midia-Enos line as on the upper map:
423px-Balkan_Wars_Boundaries.jpg


How might this affect Entente overtures (in OTL lukewarm) towards Sofia in 1914/15?
Mind you, Adrianople in Bulgaria does not affect Ottoman logistics in the Gallipoli campaign, as supplies went by ship or ox cart, there being no RR to the area.
I'd imagine that no 2nd Balkan War means slightly less bad blood between Sofia and Belgrade.

Well without the 2nd Balkan War and the resulting deeper hostility between Serbia and Bulgaria its more likely that the allies will seek to recruit the latter. However one issue is quite early on a deal between the three great EP powers saw Britain and France accept Russian control of the straits so they can't really offer Constantinople and similar areas to Bulgaria as a reward for them joining the EPs. Which might be a reason why OTL attempts were as you say lukewarm.

If Bulgaria could be persuaded to join the conflict then the Gallipoli offensive is going to be a lot more successful. I have a TL [draft like all mine unfortunately] where a Bulgarian dow occurs in the early stages of the Gallipoli campaign which means the forces drawn south into the peninsula by the landings could have problems escaping and are unable to stop the Bulgarians besieging Constantinople. Of course that was with a 1914 start so the allies could among other things offer them E Thrace which they lost OTL in the 2nd Balkan war.
 

stevep

Well-known member
I think,that Bulgary would attack Turcs in 1916,and help Allies beat them.Result - if they made Straits free for ships in 1916,no revolution,if not - only change is Turkey destroyed after WW1,with armenian and kurdish states created there.

WW2 - soviets could try take over Armenia ,Kurds and rump Turkey.
Stronger Bulgary could not enter war at all,and defeat itself from soviets if they attack.

So,either much better/no revolution/ world,or slighty better/free Bulgary/

If the Bulgarians were to attack Turkey in 1916 then I can't see why they wouldn't open the straits and that would be a huge strategic and morale boost for the allies. However the best time for them to come in on the allies side would be after the Turks declared war but before Serbia is occupied - which admittedly would be a bit later than OTL without Bulgaria invading them but possibly not much later. Best timing would be in 1915 shortly after the initial Gallipoli landings pull Ottoman forces south.

A Bulgarian entry which clears the straits for the allies in 1916 is very likely to save the Russian empire or at least the republic which would avoid the Bolsheviks although sooner or later such a party is likely to gain power somewhere. It would see complex politics in the region as if Bulgaria has gained the straits and Constantinople there would be a 3 way interaction over the region between Bulgaria, Greece and Turkey, with Russia also having a strong interest. It might not lead to the OTL Greco-Turkish war because of this so unclear what happens in Anatolia.
 

Zyobot

Just a time-traveling robot stranded on Earth.
‘President Uday Hussein’.

Probably ASB, assuming we want him to last more than a couple weeks before being coup’d or “mysteriously offed”. But suspending disbelief and playing to the scenario for a bit, I suppose you could sum up his reign as some raucous gay sex between Caligula and Pol Pot… and leave it at that.
 

WolfBear

Well-known member
‘President Uday Hussein’.

Probably ASB, assuming we want him to last more than a couple weeks before being coup’d or “suspiciously offed”. But suspending disbelief and playing to the scenario for a bit, I suppose you could sum up his reign as (angry) gay sex between Caligula and Pol Pot… and leave it at that.

Have Qusay die in some freak accident, such as choking to death, and maybe Saddam would have no choice but to make Uday his heir? And have Al Gore or someone else win the US Presidency in 2000. That way, there might not be an Iraq invasion in 2003. Avoiding 9/11 would also help with this, of course.
 
Last edited:

Buba

A total creep
WI - had Władysław/Ulaslo "Okey, okey" Jagiellon of Czechia&Hungary two sons, the OTL cretin Lajos/Louis and another one (instead of Mary or an addition to OTL), would the holdings be split between them after his death, or does the twit get both kingdoms? What could be the Habsburg - who had a say due to general power and being intermarried with Jagiellons - position on this be?
Or is it a "hard to say, can go either way" scenario?
 

ATP

Well-known member
WI - had Władysław/Ulaslo "Okey, okey" Jagiellon of Czechia&Hungary two sons, the OTL cretin Lajos/Louis and another one (instead of Mary or an addition to OTL), would the holdings be split between them after his death, or does the twit get both kingdoms? What could be the Habsburg - who had a say due to general power and being intermarried with Jagiellons - position on this be?
Or is it a "hard to say, can go either way" scenario?

If second son was idiot - nothing change.If not - he would get Czech,and led their forces to Mochacz/in OTL they send almost nothing/,resulting in draw instead of defeat.
Kingdom of Hungary lives,Habsburgs get nothing,and in 1569 hungarian jagiellonians take PLC,too.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top