I wonder what that would require? Maybe earlier political unification and a centralization of authority? Because China certainly tried to modernize.
Alternate History Ideas and Discussion
- Thread starter AndrewJTalon
- Start date
I wonder what that would require? Maybe earlier political unification and a centralization of authority? Because China certainly tried to modernize.
1953: Stalin dies, and Georgi Malenkov succeeds him. He is apparently a reform-minded Soviet, seeking to cut military spending and pull back on political repression. Nikita Khrushchev would eventually pull together a coalition of hard liners to vote Malenkov out and would become the premier instead. But suppose Malenkov had become Premier instead and managed to hold Khrushchev at bay?
PsihoKekec
Swashbuckling Accountant
From what I know Malenkov was pretty much out of his depth at his position and his downfall was only matter of time. The problem is also that he allied himself to other non-entities like Molotov, who in the past could only flourish because Stalin preferred empty suits to carry out his will.
Let's explore another bit of AU: What would a world with a real life Wakanda, an African collection of tribes getting their hands on Vibranium, look like?
Quickdraw101
Beware My Power-Green Lantern's Light
Given that they sat on their hands for hundreds of years while Africa got fucked over by Europe, they'd be hated by the entire continent.
MrBirthday
Agent of Catgirl Genocide
Here's another perhaps ASB idea: the European colonial powers being willing to treat as a full equal anyone who behaved according to their norms of civilized behavior. (Because I'd regard a setup where said empires evolved into confederations of a sort rather than dying entirely to be fascinating.)
One direct consequence from that could be the various colonies developing a two caste system where the pro-colony natives look down on the anti-colonists for being backwards, and viceversa for being traitors to their homelands.
CarlManvers2019
Writers Blocked Douchebag
Don't Wakandans themselves actually dislike even other Africans on the basis that they're not Wakandans just because they're black?
I think there'd be an issue that those areas have multiple tribes or peoples, some tribes/peoples have assimilated with the Europeans to varying degrees and already saw themselves as a separate people from those other ethnic groups
D
Deleted member 88
Guest
A few concepts.
-Egypt never unifies or remains divided in various smaller kingdoms longer. There is no Narmer or unification of the Naqada III culture-or this process is delayed substantially. Perhaps as long as a thousand years. Which gives time for the formation of other polities in the near east, and delays Egypt as one of the pillars of ANE Bronze Age civilization.
-Revolution in France, I had an idea of republican opposition to Napoleon, along those lines, let's imagine a small cadre of Jacobins and other French revolutionaries fled around the time of the directory, and return in 1817 or 1820 or so. The Bourbon monarchy botches the invasion of Spain or otherwise becomes unpopular, and a revolution against it happens again. Now there is a few ways this can go-intervention by the powers can lead to it being reinstated(most likely) or renewed revolutionary wars. The former is liable to end in the victory of the coalition and France is likely to be dissolved and carved up. In the latter scenario, war has changed-I suspect the aim of this new revolutionary france would be to spread revolution to the german states, Italy and the low countries, while securing defensible borders.
-Total Hapsburg victory in the thirty years war. Basically Wallenstein is given a blank check, and the Imperial armies are reorganized with the pro emperor nobles bullied and bribed into line. The Danes are smashed and Sweden defeated with Adolphus dying ignominiously on a Baltic shore. The French are defeated and Cardinal Mazarin is overthrown, with a much worse Fronde. Spain holds the Netherlands. The power of the Emperor is increased with Catholicism remaining a force in northern Europe, this has plenty of butterfly effects from the Spanish empire not declining as quickly to a more effective Imperial resistance and counter attack against the Ottomans in the later part of the 17th century. Basically Germany becomes more centralized under Imperial authority.
-Horses survive and are domesticated in the Americas. I have not seen a timeline that deals with this concept with much thought. But let's do so. The paleo indians do not hunt american horses into extinction(though they do still cross into Eurasia), they are eventually domesticated first for food and hide, and then are ridden. Different breeds of horses emerge in different places. Though not all Indian cultures have them. And in some they remain as either food or status symbols. But firstly this allows the great plains to be settled more broadly faster. As before horses most indian tribes remained on the edges of the plains. Secondly nomad invasions-lots of them into mesoamerica and the like. Though of course horses in Mesoamerica change the logistical constraints of mesoamerican empires. No Aztecs and any similar polity will be able to expand further-and exert larger control over subject tribes and cities. In the Andes horse breeds that are hardy and can survive at higher altitudes emerge, less need for runners. In some ways horses make the Amerindians more stratified, with an emerging aristocratic class that can afford to maintain and ride them. In terms of the European conquest-horses make the process more complicated. They do not halt it. If whatever mesoamerican empire the spanish(or whoever) finds has horses-the fear of them no longer exists. This doesn't change the differing natures of warfare(though it might) or guns. It does mean Cortez can't charge into a mass of indians and see them route because they fear the strange deer. Horse raids on the english colonies especially in the early years cause greater losses-though the Virginia company was dead set on colonization, and would basically pour infinite resources into it. No matter the cost. Horses also change the environment, less forest and more open areas. And the way of course Indians interacted with it. Perhaps they develop a more eurasian form of forest management and agriculture, perhaps not.
-Egypt never unifies or remains divided in various smaller kingdoms longer. There is no Narmer or unification of the Naqada III culture-or this process is delayed substantially. Perhaps as long as a thousand years. Which gives time for the formation of other polities in the near east, and delays Egypt as one of the pillars of ANE Bronze Age civilization.
-Revolution in France, I had an idea of republican opposition to Napoleon, along those lines, let's imagine a small cadre of Jacobins and other French revolutionaries fled around the time of the directory, and return in 1817 or 1820 or so. The Bourbon monarchy botches the invasion of Spain or otherwise becomes unpopular, and a revolution against it happens again. Now there is a few ways this can go-intervention by the powers can lead to it being reinstated(most likely) or renewed revolutionary wars. The former is liable to end in the victory of the coalition and France is likely to be dissolved and carved up. In the latter scenario, war has changed-I suspect the aim of this new revolutionary france would be to spread revolution to the german states, Italy and the low countries, while securing defensible borders.
-Total Hapsburg victory in the thirty years war. Basically Wallenstein is given a blank check, and the Imperial armies are reorganized with the pro emperor nobles bullied and bribed into line. The Danes are smashed and Sweden defeated with Adolphus dying ignominiously on a Baltic shore. The French are defeated and Cardinal Mazarin is overthrown, with a much worse Fronde. Spain holds the Netherlands. The power of the Emperor is increased with Catholicism remaining a force in northern Europe, this has plenty of butterfly effects from the Spanish empire not declining as quickly to a more effective Imperial resistance and counter attack against the Ottomans in the later part of the 17th century. Basically Germany becomes more centralized under Imperial authority.
-Horses survive and are domesticated in the Americas. I have not seen a timeline that deals with this concept with much thought. But let's do so. The paleo indians do not hunt american horses into extinction(though they do still cross into Eurasia), they are eventually domesticated first for food and hide, and then are ridden. Different breeds of horses emerge in different places. Though not all Indian cultures have them. And in some they remain as either food or status symbols. But firstly this allows the great plains to be settled more broadly faster. As before horses most indian tribes remained on the edges of the plains. Secondly nomad invasions-lots of them into mesoamerica and the like. Though of course horses in Mesoamerica change the logistical constraints of mesoamerican empires. No Aztecs and any similar polity will be able to expand further-and exert larger control over subject tribes and cities. In the Andes horse breeds that are hardy and can survive at higher altitudes emerge, less need for runners. In some ways horses make the Amerindians more stratified, with an emerging aristocratic class that can afford to maintain and ride them. In terms of the European conquest-horses make the process more complicated. They do not halt it. If whatever mesoamerican empire the spanish(or whoever) finds has horses-the fear of them no longer exists. This doesn't change the differing natures of warfare(though it might) or guns. It does mean Cortez can't charge into a mass of indians and see them route because they fear the strange deer. Horse raids on the english colonies especially in the early years cause greater losses-though the Virginia company was dead set on colonization, and would basically pour infinite resources into it. No matter the cost. Horses also change the environment, less forest and more open areas. And the way of course Indians interacted with it. Perhaps they develop a more eurasian form of forest management and agriculture, perhaps not.
Last edited by a moderator:
CarlManvers2019
Writers Blocked Douchebag
Here's an Idea
Somehow, the Roman Empire discovers and establishes colonies on North America, they don't bring any diseases with them somehow
Over time, contact between them and their European counterparts somehow breaks apart and even the local Romans don't maintain cohesion as some city-states declare themselves to be independent nations
Europeans much later discover the descendants of Roman colonies that worship pagan gods instead of the Christian God and send missionaries along the way of seeing how they can take over
Somehow, the Roman Empire discovers and establishes colonies on North America, they don't bring any diseases with them somehow
Over time, contact between them and their European counterparts somehow breaks apart and even the local Romans don't maintain cohesion as some city-states declare themselves to be independent nations
Europeans much later discover the descendants of Roman colonies that worship pagan gods instead of the Christian God and send missionaries along the way of seeing how they can take over
D
Deleted member 88
Guest
Hmm, From Exile to Triumph: a Western Roman Timeline
Nepos invasion succeeds-though its not just Italy.
In short I can see a rump WRE holding on, it will need defensible borders, and likely thus will need to expand-at least taking Carthage and modern OTL Tunisia for the grain shipments.
A surviving rump west affects the byzantines in that they are not the sole heir of the roman legacy(and this rump empire will likely be dependent on their support), the franks, lombards, burgundians, and other Germanic tribes will likely attack through the northwest, and the goths through the northeast. So these borders have to be secured.
D
Deleted member 88
Guest
So less of a specific idea and more a concept of sorts.
First off, the Byzantines survive into the modern era. That is the 18th/19th century. Either as a rump state, or some sort of ERE spanning ish empire.
Like other empires at this time, the Byzantines would have to deal with the emergence of nationalism(assuming no massive butterflies in terms of political movements).
But the nationalism I am specifically interested in is Greek nationalism. In this context, anti Byzantine Greek nationalism.
Intellectually speaking-I can see such a movement emerging in an enlightenment and romantic era Byzantine society, emphasizing ancient Greece, democracy, the poleis, and so on. Over the Hellenized Roman dynasty that rules Greece.
I could see such a movement emphasizing the organic continuity or ethnos of the Greeks, which existed before and is now under the boot of foreign rule.
The argument being that the Greeks were never independent under Roman rule-and the Byzantine emperors despite their Hellenization never were Greek or came from Greece(in a national semi mystical sense).
Let's say the Byzantine Empire controls-oh up to the Danube and down to modern Syria, even to the Euphrates River. I dunno it reconquers somehow.
I could see an uprising in Morea and the Peloponnese-perhaps spreading to Athens, over a lost war or bungled finances or what not.
Or a civil war perhaps-between Greek nationalists who want either a republic or some "homegrown" constitutional monarchy, and Byzantine Loyalists. Say in the early to mid 19th century.
Anyway just a bit of speculation.
First off, the Byzantines survive into the modern era. That is the 18th/19th century. Either as a rump state, or some sort of ERE spanning ish empire.
Like other empires at this time, the Byzantines would have to deal with the emergence of nationalism(assuming no massive butterflies in terms of political movements).
But the nationalism I am specifically interested in is Greek nationalism. In this context, anti Byzantine Greek nationalism.
Intellectually speaking-I can see such a movement emerging in an enlightenment and romantic era Byzantine society, emphasizing ancient Greece, democracy, the poleis, and so on. Over the Hellenized Roman dynasty that rules Greece.
I could see such a movement emphasizing the organic continuity or ethnos of the Greeks, which existed before and is now under the boot of foreign rule.
The argument being that the Greeks were never independent under Roman rule-and the Byzantine emperors despite their Hellenization never were Greek or came from Greece(in a national semi mystical sense).
Let's say the Byzantine Empire controls-oh up to the Danube and down to modern Syria, even to the Euphrates River. I dunno it reconquers somehow.
I could see an uprising in Morea and the Peloponnese-perhaps spreading to Athens, over a lost war or bungled finances or what not.
Or a civil war perhaps-between Greek nationalists who want either a republic or some "homegrown" constitutional monarchy, and Byzantine Loyalists. Say in the early to mid 19th century.
Anyway just a bit of speculation.
Doomsought
Well-known member
A not quite ASB AH:
The energy levels of the universe fall into place just slightly differently as to allow Electroweak force to be more accessible. This makes it powerful using specialized resonators at a very high amperage, it is possible to create a device that acts as a catalyst for nuclear fission. This class of devices has several different uses, such as the disposal (via rapid decay) of radioactive waste, fail-safe fission reactors, and "Clean" nuclear weapons.
The energy levels of the universe fall into place just slightly differently as to allow Electroweak force to be more accessible. This makes it powerful using specialized resonators at a very high amperage, it is possible to create a device that acts as a catalyst for nuclear fission. This class of devices has several different uses, such as the disposal (via rapid decay) of radioactive waste, fail-safe fission reactors, and "Clean" nuclear weapons.
Quickdraw101
Beware My Power-Green Lantern's Light
This one is pretty much ASB territory, but an anti slavery clause is written into the constitution, and the southern states, mainly Georgia and the Carolina's, who were opposed to that OTL, actually go along with it. A true land of the free, without the scourge of slavery in its distant past. This down the line means a quicker civil rights movement, more job opportunities for freedmen, no bloody civil war, and a much more united America that can truly live up to being a land where all men are created equal. Not to mention such an America would likely be far more prosperous with it utilizing the whole of its population much earlier that OTL.
CarlManvers2019
Writers Blocked Douchebag
How about an extra effort or “scene” in which they go on about how “surprisingly expensive” slavery is
Future ironic thing is basically saying that being a “wage slave” is cheaper compared to being an actual slave
Doomsought
Well-known member
Alternatively, the compramize went a different way with a 7 year limit on servitude.
CarlManvers2019
Writers Blocked Douchebag
That can be twisted into something worse and exploited to bash them all
How about a “tax on slavery” or something?
D
Deleted member 88
Guest
Reposting this here, since nobody responded to it on its own thread
So it’s around 1960 or so.
During the Cold War era. An ROB wishing the US and The USSR to have a direct land border causes Beringia to rise from the waves.
Anyway, there is a stretch of land that is flat plain.
The ROB ensures the climate of the earth is not overly changed. (Sea levels being ignored).
How does this new Cold War hotspot effect things?
Obviously both the US and the Soviets will quickly claim the area, and arrange for the border to be where the Diomede islands where(which are now little Mesas) as are the rest of the islands in the Bering Strait.
It’s flat dry plains and deep valleys. And is uninhabited by any animal life except for what will come later. Lichens, moss and grass through will colonize the landmass.
I expect this area to be heavily militarized, with the US and Soviets once they have determined where the border is to fill it with tanks and troops. Though given the remoteness of the area, it will require a lot of stuff to be brought over but despite the cost and trouble-you don’t want the other side to have bases and you don’t.
The Beringian curtain. Or the Beringian zone.
Thoughts?
So it’s around 1960 or so.
During the Cold War era. An ROB wishing the US and The USSR to have a direct land border causes Beringia to rise from the waves.
Anyway, there is a stretch of land that is flat plain.
The ROB ensures the climate of the earth is not overly changed. (Sea levels being ignored).
How does this new Cold War hotspot effect things?
Obviously both the US and the Soviets will quickly claim the area, and arrange for the border to be where the Diomede islands where(which are now little Mesas) as are the rest of the islands in the Bering Strait.
It’s flat dry plains and deep valleys. And is uninhabited by any animal life except for what will come later. Lichens, moss and grass through will colonize the landmass.
I expect this area to be heavily militarized, with the US and Soviets once they have determined where the border is to fill it with tanks and troops. Though given the remoteness of the area, it will require a lot of stuff to be brought over but despite the cost and trouble-you don’t want the other side to have bases and you don’t.
The Beringian curtain. Or the Beringian zone.
Thoughts?
Can I have a map with that stretch of land? For starters I can see that plot causing problems for future trade routes.
In order to keep a steady flow of merchant ships going, the USA would have to either broaden the panama canal to let more ships get through, or they create new one at the new land called Beringian canal.
Such a canal would also be a roadblock for the soviets in case they try to invade.
Quickdraw101
Beware My Power-Green Lantern's Light
It'd probably rival the DMZ in Korea in regards to how weaponized the area would be, but invading Alaska, even with a viable land route, would be counterproductive, and wasteful. There's very little up in Alaska to occupy, and the terrain is shit. Not to mention whatever forces the Russians have in the far east, will always be outnumbered by the Americans and Canadians.