Alternate History Map Thread
- Thread starter Basileus_Komnenos
- Start date
His Chinese colonization of the Americas occurred under the Ming Dynasty, not the Qing Dynasty.
Circle of Willis
Well-known member
Take a closer look at the infobox in the lower-left corner of the map. Yeah, the colonization in Sarthaka's map is said to have started in Ming times, but it clearly progresses until 1800 (well into Qing times) and the flag & imperial seal featured are those of the Qing dynasty.
You're right; thanks for clarifying!
Batrix2070
RON/PLC was a wonderful country.
I'm always puzzled why they always, but always have to, as part of an alternative Cold War, give East Germany pre-war borders beyond Prussia, but Poland always gives the border on the Bug River?
What is it that bothers them about Poland's western border, they can't stand it that big Germany got in the way?
The Asian Giants
The year is 1600 AD. For around a century now, five Empires have dominated the politics of Asia. In the land of the Shahanshahs, Zikanid Iran stands proud and tall, deriving its origins to the Achaemenid Empire under the Great House of Zik/Zikan. In India, the Newars of Nepal firmly established the Empire of Nepala under the Malla Dynasty, ushering a new era of Buddhist renaissance to the subcontinent. In the East Indies, Majapahit rules supreme, ruling the waves and the straits trade. In the lands of Taizong and Bai Hu, the Great Ming stands proud as the Celestial Leader of All Under Heaven, ruling from Central Asia to even the New World under their Fusangese Colonies. To the frozen north, the Yakutian Horde stands prideful of its victories against the Slavs of Eastern Europe. But as European powers start to slowly encroach upon Asia, these Empires will face difficulties from Europe, but can they survive the test of time? Only the Heavens knows.........
Thoughts and Comments?
The Asian GiantsThe year is 1600 AD. For around a century now, five Empires have dominated the politics of Asia. In the land of the Shahanshahs, Zikanid Iran stands proud and tall, deriving its origins to the Achaemenid Empire under the Great House of Zik/Zikan. In India, the Newars of Nepal firmly established the Empire of Nepala under the Malla Dynasty, ushering a new era of Buddhist renaissance to the subcontinent. In the East Indies, Majapahit rules supreme, ruling the waves and the straits trade. In the lands of Taizong and Bai Hu, the Great Ming stands proud as the Celestial Leader of All Under Heaven, ruling from Central Asia to even the New World under their Fusangese Colonies. To the frozen north, the Yakutian Horde stands prideful of its victories against the Slavs of Eastern Europe. But as European powers start to slowly encroach upon Asia, these Empires will face difficulties from Europe, but can they survive the test of time? Only the Heavens knows.........
Thoughts and Comments?
Is China ever going to complete its conquest of Japan?
And interesting that Indonesia remains Hindu in this TL.
The Nepala India is essentially a proto-India, only including OTL's Bangladesh, Nepal, Bhutan, and Sri Lanka as well.
Zikanid Iran I would eventually expect to get dominated by OTL's Pakistanis due to their sheer population advantage.
History Learner
Well-known member
Well, India already has ethnic federalism, it just needs an extremely massive crisis to cause it to break up along the lines of the Soviet Union, or Yugoslavia, or Czechoslovakia, or Austria-Hungary, or the German Empire, or the Ottoman Empire, or the Russian Empire. But what exactly that would be, well, I don't know. It helps that Hinduism is a common glue that helps hold India together, even more so in recent years due to the spread of Hindu nationalism in India. India is, IMHO, a much poorer and much more integrated Hindu version of the European Union.
The Asian GiantsThe year is 1600 AD. For around a century now, five Empires have dominated the politics of Asia. In the land of the Shahanshahs, Zikanid Iran stands proud and tall, deriving its origins to the Achaemenid Empire under the Great House of Zik/Zikan. In India, the Newars of Nepal firmly established the Empire of Nepala under the Malla Dynasty, ushering a new era of Buddhist renaissance to the subcontinent. In the East Indies, Majapahit rules supreme, ruling the waves and the straits trade. In the lands of Taizong and Bai Hu, the Great Ming stands proud as the Celestial Leader of All Under Heaven, ruling from Central Asia to even the New World under their Fusangese Colonies. To the frozen north, the Yakutian Horde stands prideful of its victories against the Slavs of Eastern Europe. But as European powers start to slowly encroach upon Asia, these Empires will face difficulties from Europe, but can they survive the test of time? Only the Heavens knows.........
Thoughts and Comments?
I would say the odd one out here, other than a Nepalese dynasty ruling India, would be the Yakutian Horde, as its lands are overall so poor. If it was a successor to the Mongols and still dominated much of 'Russia' and/or had control of those parts of Central Asia in Ming hands then it has much more wealth and population to make it a serious player.
Assuming the Zikanid empire is non-Muslim that I assume means than Iran never got conquered by Islam - assuming that existed in TTL. In which case I wonder what the lands to the north of it are? A mixture of Zoroastrianism/Buddhism and possibly Christian or Hindu in places?
What gave you the impression that the Zikanid Empire is non-Muslim?
Largely this description.
Well I wasn't sure hence the 'assuming' but that does suggest a lot more continuity with traditional Persian dynasties from the Achaemenid to the Sassanid. Although later rulers who identified themselves as Iranian still used the title of Shan and Farsi re-emerged as the dominant tongue OTL Iran lost a hell of a lot of its culture and identity due to the Muslim conquest. Hence I was thinking that might be the case.
Plus that would probably improve the chances of a Buddhist revival under a Nepali dynasty in India without centres of Muslim raiders from the west or north either ravaging the place or setting up their own dynasties in the north. Not to mention the westward expansion of the Ming.
I could be wrong of course.
Largely this description.
Well I wasn't sure hence the 'assuming' but that does suggest a lot more continuity with traditional Persian dynasties from the Achaemenid to the Sassanid. Although later rulers who identified themselves as Iranian still used the title of Shan and Farsi re-emerged as the dominant tongue OTL Iran lost a hell of a lot of its culture and identity due to the Muslim conquest. Hence I was thinking that might be the case.
Plus that would probably improve the chances of a Buddhist revival under a Nepali dynasty in India without centres of Muslim raiders from the west or north either ravaging the place or setting up their own dynasties in the north. Not to mention the westward expansion of the Ming.
I could be wrong of course.
FWIW, even with Islam, Iran managed to preserve large parts of its culture, such as its language and some of its holidays, such as Nowruz. Islam didn't completely eliminate pre-Islamic Iranian culture. In fact, this reminds me of how a lot of Iranians got offended by the film 300] back in 2006 even though it portrayed their pre-Islamic country and soldiers in a bad light:
AMERICA'S QUEBEC;
WHAT IF LOUISIANA REMAINED FRANCOPHONE?
WHAT IF LOUISIANA REMAINED FRANCOPHONE?
In 1803, when the Louisiana Purchase was completed, there was a fear that under the American government, the traditionally French-speaking region of Louisiana would be strangled slowly into the realm of being Anglophone instead. This was not an irrational fear as homesteading showed afterward. In response, the Louisianans had their fertility rate skyrocket through the roof, increasing the natural Francophone population of the region. Natural emigration of French speakers from Haiti, and French Republicans from France also bolstered this French-speaking bastion in America before the 1842 French Louisiana Act reluctantly accepted reality and officially safeguarded the language within the state of Louisiana within the USA.
Nevertheless, the Louisianans grew to have a distrust of the federal government, immediately jumping ship in 1860 and joining the Confederate States of America. In 1864-65 it was reconquered by America, and subjected to Reconstruction, which did not make inclinations to the federal government any better. Aside from Hawaii, Post-Civil War America had to deal with little separatism barring that of Louisiana, which flip-flopped politically from the Nationalist Separatist La Louisiane Party which supported independence, and the Louisiana Democrats which favored Regionalism. When separatism became illegal by law in the late 1800s, riots broke out in Louisiana with American governmental officials attacked on the streets. Though separatism remained banned, the 1897 Louisiana Act gave absolute cultural and religious freedom to Louisiana as a concession. Louisianan regionalism remained high through the 20th century as well, with Louisiana having the least amount of volunteers for the army during WW1 and WW2 for America by the proportion of state population. During the 1960s and 1970s, inspired by Quebecois Nationalism in Canada, Louisiana Nationalism began to rear its head once again. The Louisiana Troubles started in 1972 and ended in 1999 which resulted in the deaths of thousands of American troops and Louisianan civilians. Finally, mirroring Britain, America passed the 1999 2nd Louisiana Act giving Louisiana the ability to secede from America if both houses of the Louisianan State government agreed to hold a referendum by 2/3 majority, and the referendum passed by the majority of the population. This led to the peaceful 2003 Louisiana Independence Referendum which was defeated with 48.12% voting in favor of independence with the rest voting against. Today, Louisiana remains the Francophone and most regionalist state of the United States of America.
Thoughts and Comments?
Skallagrim
Well-known member
I have serious doubts about the premise (not enough French settlers to begin with, nor enough to be willing to move there after the POD, and the number of Anglo migrants is severely under-estimated here; see the demographics of Texas for a good comparison). That being said, it's a fun and interesting idea.
It seems to me that if Louisiana had pushed for independence without the Northern regions and that corner in the South-East, they'd have gotten their way.
Loads of butterflies, in any case. If the Spanish-majority border regions are any indication, the presence of Francophone Louisiana barred Anglo migration into Texas, and the Mexican-American war presumably didn't happen. Totally different USA, then.
(Although, again, the lack of a "further West" -- at least one as big as in OTL -- would just ensure that Lousiana gets totally drowned in Anglo settlers.)
Last edited: