Alternate History Ideas and Discussion
- Thread starter AndrewJTalon
- Start date
Skallagrim
Well-known member
Probably not, to preserve it, you'd need a POD during Aristotle's life-time, and good storage will mean that the bulk of his work is not lost in a damp cellar (as in OTL). So it'll presumably be available and widely disseminated (his known works were, after all, in OTL).
So the effects will be pretty much immediate, and they'll only grow stronger over time.
Zyobot
Just a time-traveling robot stranded on Earth.
Well, in any case, your TL outline certainly has promise. Maybe it’d be called The Triumph of Reason or something to that effect, since Aristotle’s brand of inquiry remains dominant from the get-go and would probably engender a Scientific Revolution millennia before OTL. Quite possibly a much earlier Industrial Revolution around the Med, as well, though off-hand, I don’t know whether the surrounding countries were sufficiently “resource-endowed” for that.
Although… I’d think with a POD that far back, you’d butterfly Christianity and actual Scholasticism, despite there being an ATL analogue to at least the latter (if not necessarily the former). Come to think it, that means Islam gets butterflied, too, which kills off two of three Abrahamic faiths and leaves the fate of Judaism rather “open-ended” here. Despite that, it’d certainly have a slew of “interesting” theological-philosophical ramifications, since a more reason-based approach understanding the world negates “The Gods have no bounds and can do as they please!” excuse that more… “Schizophrenic” believers tend towards.
Circle of Willis
Well-known member
Day was chosen over Manning in the Alliance's first leadership election precisely because the other members thought he'd have more appeal to Ontario/Quebec than Manning. They were right, in the sense that 1 is an infinitely greater number than 0 - the Alliance took 2 seats in ON compared to the 0 they had before under Manning, due to Day's gaffes and the perception built by the CBC & Liberals that he was a fanatical evangelical social conservative.
However he never got the chance to improve on those results, which he probably would have had he been able to stick around for later elections where the Liberals' corruption was moving into the open & their infighting was intensifying. IIRC Day was generally well-spoken when he worked under Harper so possibly his 2000 campaign gaffes were just a horrible fluke (certainly he seems to have been less of a robotic personality than Harper at least), and investigation after investigation (both internally by the Alliance/CPC and externally by the RCMP) cleared him of any wrongdoing in the various scandals he was said to have a hand in, which should make for a healthy contrast with the Liberals as time goes on.
Off-topic, but what I find interesting is that apparently it was Aristotle rather than Christians who invented the first argument against gay sex: Specifically, the fact that using a body part for something other than its designed/intended purpose is ostensibly wrong. At the very least, that was what my Philosophy professors at my university almost a decade ago taught us. He also taught us the counter-argument that if it fits, and there's consent, then one should not object lol!
Have it avoid becoming a family dictatorship and instead have it become a generic Communist dictatorship like China and Vietnam and Laos where it's led more by a Communist Party and less by just one family.
Morphic Tide
Well-known member
Horrific fundamentalists of a religion that started with a wildly successful warlord establishing a new stable state is not actually that wild. The only question is dodging or pushing through international pressure that tries to preserve the "Big Lie" of territorial stasis at truly baffling costs. Which likely comes down to "get a successful coup early", because coups inherit international standing to have talks openly by wearing the skin of the previous government, whereas legitimizing a new state is basically impossible.
More generally, the "winning" strategy would likely be civil wars targeting the theocratic apparatuses of various states and installing them where they currently aren't a thing by throwing Rising Regional Power resources at corruption shenanigans. Basically "Cold War Round Two: Wahabi Boogaloo", just replace Communism with fundamentalist Islam.
An article about what the US would have looked like without slavery:
Just have the Vietnamese annex Laos and Cambodia when they de facto controlled these countries in the 1980s. This would mean even more international sanctions and condemnation against Vietnam, of course.
Skallagrim
Well-known member
Somehow that title makes me think of guillotines and goose-stepping.
Well, millennia...
If you assume these things take a bit of time, you could see the POD leading to an intellectual tradition that is set to foster that sort of thing. The formation of that intellectual trend could be relatively quick, and could begin to bear fruit even early on. Say that you arrive at some ATL "scholasticism" somewhere around 100 BC. The climate that produces this is also producing certain advances in science and certain technological innovations, although ones that certainly can't be called "industrial". Think treatises on agricultural methods, and creative improvements for water-wheels and hydraulic pumps. Large mechanical clocks, and dissertations on mathematics.
Look at OTL's rough speed of scientific and technological advancement. Add something of a margin to account for inevitable dead ends, and for the fact that certain "background inventions" that were around by OTL AD 1100 just weren't around in 100 BC (so they have to be "home-grown", first). Let's say that you could reach the rough tech level of OTL AD 1500 by AD 500 or so. From there, I think you may reasonably expect things to progress towards an industrial revolution in roughly the same time-span we saw in OTL, post-1500.
So it's more millennium, really. You could be about a thousand years ahead of OTL, science-and-tech-wise.
It's still quite possible (perhaps probable) that monetheism does fit very well into the Aristotelian idea of the kosmos. After all, it neatly brings you to a proper First Cause. Rather than a monotheist theologian (like Saint Thomas) integrating Aristotelian philosphy into the doctrines of his Church, you may see the reverse: an Aristotelian philosopher integrating monotheist theology into the doctrines of his School.
All true.I remember some book about such progress,Steam Legion or something like that.Forget author,read few chapters some time ago.
Romans with steam machines - it would be interesting,althought...they had slaves,so why build costly machines?
CastilloVerde
Active member
This could occur if Central Asia and India are united into a greater cultural sphere. This can be easily acheived if Central Asia and India are united by an empire long enough for the two regions to share the same religious traditions, considering that religion and culture are closely linked and a common religion is an excellent way for a coherent cultural sphere to develop.
Buddhism is a great option. The religio was already popular in pre-Islamic Central Asia and, I assume, would eventually become the predominant religion of India if India's historical trajectory was not derailed by the Islamic conquests.
I suppose this could plausibly be done with a POD that allows the Maurya and Mauryan successor states to have greater control, and (over time) cultural influence, over Central Asia.
However, I'm fond of having a more-successful Hephthalite empire conquer much of India, to go along with their OTL conquests in Central Asia. Because India is the more populous, rich and prestigious region of the empire, the empire would shift its focus southwards. The Indian influence would naturally "indianize" their elites. Indian religious traditions like Buddhism would become dominant in the empire, which was a major religion in the Hephthalite realm in OTL anyway. So, Central Asia would likely become a Buddhist heartland much as it was in OTL before the Islamic conquest.
Iran/Persia would be a problem, considering that Central Asia was also part of "Greater Iran" and would thus be a target by Iranian attempts at conquest, much as in OTL. Indeed the Sassanids joined the Turks in the sixth century to defeat the Hephthalites. I think, though, that an early POD could avert this. Perhaps a more successful Eastern Rome that pursues an "Eastern" strategy instead of Justinian's western vanity project can defeat the Persians enough to allow the Indo-Hephthalites to consolidate.
As the centuries pass, assuming also that Islam never arises (which is likely with this early POD anyway), Central Asia would be closely linked, integrated, with India in various aspects - religiously, culturally, politically, etc.
Alternatively, however, we can imagine a POD after the Islamic conquests.
We know that the Ghurids and Ghaznavids controlled not only much of Central Asia, but also invaded and conquered parts of India which massively derailed India's historical development (but that's another subject). The successors of the Ghurids eventually established the Delhi Sultanate. This, over time, would form the nucleus of the great Mughal Empire that controlled most of India and even lands of Central Asia (such as Afghanistan).
If you want greater integration between Central and South Asia, think of a greater and more successful "Mughal" Empire that definitively absorbs much more of Central Asia - and keeps it (so no Russian or Chinese conquest). India would probably have a much larger Muslim population in this scenario, thanks to extended rule by Muslim elites which makes it more favourable for Islam to flourish. Over time, links between South and Central Asia are created and maintained. I'm sure this scenario can fulfill the requirements of the AHC.
Zyobot
Just a time-traveling robot stranded on Earth.
You know… you could probably make some pretty cool maps of this. I know you suggested two PODs culminating in the same result, but in either case, the ATL geography and ethnocultural composition would certainly be “foreign” to OTL eyes — which isn’t always a bad thing, mind you.
That said, what do you think happens to China? Obviously, it neighbors Central and South Asia both, so the opportunities for more “innocuous” cross-cultural exchange — and, of course, for border conflicts or wars of conquest — goes without saying. It may have historically prided itself on being the Middle Kingdom that keeps its hands clean of “icky barbarian foreigners”, but I’d say both the Mongol incursions and more “passive” exchange with its neighbors that’d inevitably happen over thousands of years suggests otherwise. You’re bound to get a good helping of that IATL, too, I think.
Skallagrim
Well-known member
This is a matter worth discussing on its own terms. Generally speaking, I think the thesis of slavery discouraging industry is entirely wrong. It's based in an incorrect universal application of developments that were actually very particular to the American situation. Specifically: in the USA, the presence of slavery in the South seems to have retarded the growth of industry, and therefore (the reasoning goes) it must be true that slavery always stands in the way of industry.
Scrutiny reveals the assumption to be false. Indeed, slavery survived because it embraced the products of industry, e.g. the cotton gin. Slavery was on the way out, but then the cotton gin was invented, and suddenly the whole process was way more cost-efficient. This was no reason to suddenly abandon slavery: this wondrous invention simply meant that you could get way more revenue per slave. Nor was slavery a reason to reject the invention-- for exactly the same reason.
The main reason why slavery seemed to retard industry was that this "American" form of slavery was specifically introduced to get work done in the hot, malarial climates. Christianity in general objected to slavery, so there were no white slaves. Meanwhile, blacks fared poorly in the North, because their dark skin absorbs less vitamin D. (That's why white people exist. In regions with less sunlight, the people with lighter skin survive. In regions with loads of sunlight, it's the other way around.)
Anyway, the point is: no white slaves existed (indentured servitude was always controversial). So slavery was purely a "Southern", "warm climate" thing. Therefore, it didn't exist in the North. Now, the reason industry didn't do well in the South wasn't slavery. It was a lack of air conditioning. Check it out: industry in the South didn't suddenly appear after 1865! It suddenly made massive strides forward after air conditioning was invented! Factories get hot. Try running a factory in the Louisiana summer without air conditioning-- it'll literally kill the work-force.
For these reasons, there was opportunity for industry in the North, and opportunity for agrarianism in the South. Now, as I explained, within Western civilisation, slavery was decided to be exclusively for non-whites, who were specifically used in the South where whites fared poorly. (And were not used in the North, where blacks fared poorly.) This is why slavery correlates with agrarianism, but the relation isn't actually causal. If there had been no slaves at all, the South would still have been predominantly agrarian until we got airco! Conversely: if slavery of whites had been permitted, then white factory-slaves would soon have been ubiquitous in the North!
...In the ancient world, slavery was not colour-coded. Slaves were also used for practically any form of work. As such, I surmise that if an industrial revolution (or something leading up to it) had occurred during this period, slavery would not have stood in its way-- nor would industry have displaced slavery. There would be slaves working in fields, slaves working in stables or garages, slaves building rail-roads, and slaves at the assembly lines in the factories.
Until someone figured out that paying your work-force a pittance and leaving them to figure out their own shit otherwise is actually cheaper than not paying them but having to house and feed them. Slavery is not killed by industry, but by capitalism. And it's not done out of kindness, but out of greed. Excesses not withstanding, there is evidence that the average slave in 1840 had it better (materially speaking!) than the average factory-worker in 1880. (Of course, crappy as that factory worker's life was, the very fact of not being owned by someone else has enormous weight in itself.)