Alternate History Ideas and Discussion

[Earl]

That assessment is pretty unfair.

1. He pretty much absorbed those empires, taking their knowledge and technology for his own purposes. This guy started out living in a yurt, and by the end he employed more mathematicians and engineers than anyone else on the planet.

2. While he was brutal in his methods, this has been misrepresented. Genghis Khan was the absolute world champion of all time when it comes to "the carrot and the stick". Voluntarily joining him was almost always a distinct improvement. Opposing him meant you became an example of what not to do. This is a strategy that was likewise employed by Alexander, for instance.

3. Speaking of improvements: great inventment into infrastructure, practically-minded policy of religious freedom, considerable reduction in tax burden, categorical tax exemption for the poor, removal of corrupt governors... For most people, being conquered by the Mongols was more like being liberated. (And sure, that's for the ones who didn't happen to live in a city that resisted... but on average? Genghis Khan improved far more lives than he ended.)

4. After he died, his empire still lasted over six decades. That's impressive, when you consider that the general rule is "fast rise, swift fall". See also: Alexander.

5. The Mongol successor states were new iterations of the empires he had conquered, so saying he broke them isn't really accurate. Or did Persia and China no longer exist, after his time?

1. Being a very successful social climbing mass murderer and tyrant still makes you a mass murderer and tyrant.

2. Thing is, when he used the stick millions of people were the victims, no mercy or pity seen, in a way which was uncommon for Medevial armies.

3. Yes these are all good things, but there are other instances. I also happen to know the mongols also very often used for horrid expropriation.A system where if you didn’t pay up, not only you, but your entire family and province would be anihlated, where fields would be left with dead bodies for decades after and create social problems which last centuries later (See Russia)

4. Fair cop. In which time they did even more damage, see finishing up the conquest of Russia, burning Baghdad and waging more unending war on China.

5.Funny you bring up Persia and China. Persias population was hit so hard by the Mongols they were pushed down to Bronze Age agriculture and didn’t recover there numbers until 1950. China had to be brought in whole in a brutal conquest and even then, the Yuan dynasty was never regarded as a legitimate dynasty and thrown out in a Peseant rebellion.And of course, Russia, where the Mongols destroyed the center of Russian power in Kiev and created the fundamentally gangster dynamics we see continue onto this day by making Nobles there tax collectors, with the implicit threat of burning down them and all that they loved and cared about if they didn’t extract as much as possible, creating poisonous social incentives, only perpetuated to this day.

 

[WolfBear]

"Good afternoon. Those are some cute attempts you fellows have listed. Anyway, "150 years or less" is a benchmark for weaklings. Let me show you how it's done. Biggest land empire in history, coming right up."

Quite amazing, isn't it? 800 years ago, Mongols conquered a huge part of the Old World! Meanwhile, right now, Mongolia is a rather unimportant country with less than five million people. How the mighty have fallen! Though something similar could be said for, say, Greece vs. the Byzantine Empire or Italy vs. the Roman Empire.

Nowadays, not even Mongolian barbecue is actually Mongolian!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mongolian_barbecue

 

[Skallagrim]

Quite amazing, isn't it? 800 years ago, Mongols conquered a huge part of the Old World! Meanwhile, right now, Mongolia is a rather unimportant country with less than five million people. How the mighty have fallen! Though something similar could be said for, say, Greece vs. the Byzantine Empire or Italy vs. the Roman Empire.

Nowadays, not even Mongolian barbecue is actually Mongolian!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mongolian_barbecue

The wheel keeps turning. Now you ascend to the highest point, now you are down in the mud.

1. Being a very successful social climbing mass murderer and tyrant still makes you a mass murderer and tyrant.

2. Thing is, when he used the stick millions of people were the victims, no mercy or pity seen, in a way which was uncommon for Medevial armies.

3. Yes these are all good things, but there are other instances. I also happen to know the mongols also very often used for horrid expropriation.A system where if you didn’t pay up, not only you, but your entire family and province would be anihlated, where fields would be left with dead bodies for decades after and create social problems which last centuries later (See Russia)

4. Fair cop. In which time they did even more damage, see finishing up the conquest of Russia, burning Baghdad and waging more unending war on China.

5.Funny you bring up Persia and China. Persias population was hit so hard by the Mongols they were pushed down to Bronze Age agriculture and didn’t recover there numbers until 1950. China had to be brought in whole in a brutal conquest and even then, the Yuan dynasty was never regarded as a legitimate dynasty and thrown out in a Peseant rebellion.And of course, Russia, where the Mongols destroyed the center of Russian power in Kiev and created the fundamentally gangster dynamics we see continue onto this day by making Nobles there tax collectors, with the implicit threat of burning down them and all that they loved and cared about if they didn’t extract as much as possible, creating poisonous social incentives, only perpetuated to this day.

Your entire argument (or collection thereof, rather) conflates a moral position with a historical assessment. THis doesn't add up in light of your earlier statement about rather killing Genghis Khan than Hitler. I didn't say Genghis Khan was a pinnacle of unimpeachable ethics, I said he did quite a lot of good, along with the bad. I estimated that, when you tally it up, he probably did more good than bad.

Here's the question: can you say the same about Hitler?

Because that was my point. The desire to kill Genghis Khan rather than Adolf Hitler is just absurd to me. Only one of them was an irredeemable dick who literally brought nothing good into the world, neither for his foes nor for his followers.

 

[WolfBear]

The wheel keeps turning. Now you ascend to the highest point, now you are down in the mud.



Your entire argument (or collection thereof, rather) conflates a moral position with a historical assessment. THis doesn't add up in light of your earlier statement about rather killing Genghis Khan than Hitler. I didn't say Genghis Khan was a pinnacle of unimpeachable ethics, I said he did quite a lot of good, along with the bad. I estimated that, when you tally it up, he probably did more good than bad.

Here's the question: can you say the same about Hitler?

Because that was my point. The desire to kill Genghis Khan rather than Adolf Hitler is just absurd to me. Only one of them was an irredeemable dick who literally brought nothing good into the world, neither for his foes nor for his followers.

One of the few "good" things that Hitler did was allow the Soviet Union to acquire western Ukraine, which in turn ensured that the Soviet Union would have much more Ukranian nationalists within its territories. This also ensured that Ukraine would not eventually fall back into Russia's orbit after the collapse of the Soviet Union. But this certainly isn't a price worth paying for all of Hitler's atrocities, that's for sure!

 

[Zyobot]

The wheel keeps turning. Now you ascend to the highest point, now you are down in the mud.

True, though it's odd to think that'll happen to America someday, too, since no state of affairs lasts forever.

'Ronald Reagan And Barry Goldwater On The Same Presidential Ticket'. Doesn't matter as much to me who gets which slot, though given his charisma and what happened IOTL, my money's on Reagan as the presidential nominee (and Goldwater as his VP).

 

[WolfBear]

True, though it's odd to think that'll happen to America someday, too, since no state of affairs lasts forever.

'Ronald Reagan And Barry Goldwater On The Same Presidential Ticket'.

Reagan picks Goldwater as his VP in 1980 after Goldwater renounces his past opposition to the 1964 Civil Rights Act?

 

[WolfBear]

'AHC: A Byzantine reconquest of most or all of the territories that they lost to the Muslims with a PoD of 700 or later'

 

[Skallagrim]

Replying to this with a bit of a delay:

Wasn't the Byzantine throne going to go to a more junior Russian prince (Constantine)? If so, wouldn't that have indicated that the Russian Empire and Byzantine Kingdom would have been meant to be separate realms indefinitely? Similar to the French and Spanish crowns after the 1713 Treaty of Utrecht?

Louis XIV only accepted those terms because he couldn't defeat his opponents. The scenario I outlined, to which you're replying here, refers to the fact that Austria would not be in a position to check Russian ambitions (due to things in France going pear-shaped, drawing all attention West).

So, to be sure, the official deal between Russia and Austria would be that the Neo-Byzantine state would be independent. And Austria's intention would be to ensure that a union of Moscow and Constantinople would be forbidden by treaty. But as I said: Austria wouldn't be able to enforce its wishes at this juncture.

So the likely outcome would be that Constantine gets the Byzantine crown, as planned, but unification isn't ruled out. Constantine had no legitimate issue in OTL, after all. So in the simple event of this being the same in the ATL, the Byzantine crown goes to the Tsar of Russia upon Constantine's death.

And if Constantine does have issue... well, it wouldn't be the first time that a bunch of royals orchestrate some politically opportune marriages between cousins. And then it can easily come to pass that Russia inherits Constantinople before to too long, anyway.

 

[WolfBear]

Replying to this with a bit of a delay:


Louis XIV only accepted those terms because he couldn't defeat his opponents. The scenario I outlined, to which you're replying here, refers to the fact that Austria would not be in a position to check Russian ambitions (due to things in France going pear-shaped, drawing all attention West).

So, to be sure, the official deal between Russia and Austria would be that the Neo-Byzantine state would be independent. And Austria's intention would be to ensure that a union of Moscow and Constantinople would be forbidden by treaty. But as I said: Austria wouldn't be able to enforce its wishes at this juncture.

So the likely outcome would be that Constantine gets the Byzantine crown, as planned, but unification isn't ruled out. Constantine had no legitimate issue in OTL, after all. So in the simple event of this being the same in the ATL, the Byzantine crown goes to the Tsar of Russia upon Constantine's death.

And if Constantine does have issue... well, it wouldn't be the first time that a bunch of royals orchestrate some politically opportune marriages between cousins. And then it can easily come to pass that Russia inherits Constantinople before to too long, anyway.

That would be interesting: Russia controlling not only Wallachia and Moldavia, but also Bulgaria and most of Greece as well, in addition to Constantinople, of course.

Where did you read about Russia wanting/planning to expel Turks from western Anatolia?

 

[Earl]

Your entire argument (or collection thereof, rather) conflates a moral position with a historical assessment. THis doesn't add up in light of your earlier statement about rather killing Genghis Khan than Hitler. I didn't say Genghis Khan was a pinnacle of unimpeachable ethics, I said he did quite a lot of good, along with the bad. I estimated that, when you tally it up, he probably did more good than bad.

Here's the question: can you say the same about Hitler?

Because that was my point. The desire to kill Genghis Khan rather than Adolf Hitler is just absurd to me. Only one of them was an irredeemable dick who literally brought nothing good into the world, neither for his foes nor for his followers.

Fair point, I see my point was mistaken, so I’ll say it here now: I personally disagree on the fact he did more good than bad, no he isn’t Adolf Hitler in terms of morals. I doubt any other Mongol leader of the time would of been any more merciful if they had any of the talents of Temujin. I’d still kill him to save the countries he rode through from destruction (see Russia and Persia).

 

[Bassoe]

One of the few "good" things that Hitler did was allow the Soviet Union to acquire western Ukraine, which in turn ensured that the Soviet Union would have much more Ukranian nationalists within its territories. This also ensured that Ukraine would not eventually fall back into Russia's orbit after the collapse of the Soviet Union.

How is that supposed to be a good thing considering if it hadn't been done, we wouldn't be at the risk of nuclear war now?

 

[Buba]

'AHC: A Byzantine reconquest of most or all of the territories that they lost to the Muslims with a PoD of 700 or later'

Simple - have Basil the Bulgar Slayer be succeeeded by two above average, competent emperors.

 

[Skallagrim]

That would be interesting: Russia controlling not only Wallachia and Moldavia, but also Bulgaria and most of Greece as well, in addition to Constantinople, of course.

If Austria is really distracted -- that is, if the French Revolution still causes similar events to OTL -- the Russians can easily end up grabbing all of the Balkans, with the exception of Croatia (and, plausibly, Bosnia or parts thereof).

Where did you read about Russia wanting/planning to expel Turks from western Anatolia?

Potemkin was in charge. It was explicitly his plan to expel Muslims wherever he could, and in the OTL war of 1787-1792, he became notorious for actually presiding over expulsions and massacres.

 

[Sergeant Foley]

Simple - have Basil the Bulgar Slayer be succeeeded by two above average, competent emperors.

How about this idea: Chiang aggressively crushes Mao and the commies in the 1949 Civil War. What would be the ramifications going forward?

 

[Buba]

How about this idea: Chiang aggressively crushes Mao and the commies in the 1949 Civil War. What would be the ramifications going forward?

No Korean War, for starters.
And Vietnam War, USA Involvement Editon either, as without ChiCom support the mass murderer regime of Ho Chi Min is crushed by the French.
A quite different world

 

[Circle of Willis]

How about this idea: Chiang aggressively crushes Mao and the commies in the 1949 Civil War. What would be the ramifications going forward?

That's pretty distinct from the 700s-800s Byzantine POD you quoted, but to answer, I asked the same question myself on here a year ago. Forum consensus seems to have been that the KMT still has big issues to deal with - severe corruption, land reform, food shortages, the remaining warlords, etc. But it would also avoid the absolute calamities of the Great Leap Forward & Cultural Revolution, so China will ultimately almost certainly be in a somewhat to much better place economically, demographically, politically and psychologically by the '80s-'90s (much less the 21st century) compared to OTL. Chiang would have to try very, very hard to do any worse than Mao.

You may also get long-term Sino-Soviet conflicts over East Turkestan and Manchuria, which the Soviets might either grab for themselves or organize into puppet states for any surviving Communist remnants.

As an aside, the best POD for a KMT victory would have been their encirclement campaigns against the Jiangxi Soviet succeeding in the 1930s, thereby destroying Chinese Communism before it can undertake the Long March and killing off Mao before he becomes remotely relevant. After WW2 it's much harder for the KMT to win due to the brutal beating they've just taken at Japanese hands, while the CCP got to hide behind them & avoid the worst of the fighting in addition to building up popular support while the Nationalists were bleeding.

No Korean War, for starters.
And Vietnam War, USA Involvement Editon either, as without ChiCom support the mass murderer regime of Ho Chi Min is crushed by the French.
A quite different world

An additional knock-on effect of there being no Mao or Maoism also means Maoist thought never infects the American left - the Black Panthers, Rainbow Coalition, and Weathermen among others will either be gone entirely or look quite different than they did IOTL. Communism in the USA remains strictly confined to the CPUSA and their leader Gus Hall, an increasingly decrepit & obvious Soviet puppet unpopular with the Boomer generation. The '60s and '70s may still be a time of social change & upheaval, but I'd like to think that with the ideological font of all the most militant and psychotic New Left groups destroyed decades earlier by Chiang, the national mood will be less 'revolutionary', bloody-minded and nihilistic. More 'flower power' than 'by any means necessary'.

 

[Doomsought]

No Korean War, for starters.

It would be replaced by a war in Mongolia where the Russians are getting aggressive against the Chinese.

 

[Skallagrim]

In 1923, Franklin Delano Roosevelt sent a screenplay he'd written for a prospective film about John Paul Jones to Paramount. They politely turned it down. But they pretended to entertain the idea for months, because they didn't want to make him into an enemy. (His family was wealthy and powerful, and he had enough pull to put his screenplay directly on the desk of Adolph Zukor, the big boss over at Paramount.)

Suppose they hadn't turned him down? Suppose FDR had become a screenwriter for paramount, delivering historical epics and dramas for them? Even if he doesn't really change the history of American cinema in any big way... this means he won't go back into politics.

 

[Earl]

In 1923, Franklin Delano Roosevelt sent a screenplay he'd written for a prospective film about John Paul Jones to Paramount. They politely turned it down. But they pretended to entertain the idea for months, because they didn't want to make him into an enemy. (His family was wealthy and powerful, and he had enough pull to put his screenplay directly on the desk of Adolph Zukor, the big boss over at Paramount.)

Suppose they hadn't turned him down? Suppose FDR had become a screenwriter for paramount, delivering historical epics and dramas for them? Even if he doesn't really change the history of American cinema in any big way... this means he won't go back into politics.

We still get a Democrat in 32, becaus Depression time and Hoover will still fuck up. Its still likely to be a Progessive, because they tried Conservatism throughout the 20s and got drubbed for it and the tides of Depression make it look likely. Now the question is who the Dems pick. Will he be competent enough to push as far as FDR? What would his opinions be when World War Two (If he gets that far)? Can he even win reelection? FDR Was a once in a lifetime figure having both extrodinary legislative skill and Charisma, so I doubt we get the whole hog new deal out of this.

 

[Buba]

this means he won't go back into politics.

What a wonderful POD!
The USA surely would be a better place had he gone to Hollywood and stayed there.