Which of these Before 1900 ideas sounds most interesting?

  • Thread starter Deleted member 93645
  • Start date

Which scenario is most interesting?


  • Total voters
    122

Deleted member 93645

Which of these mostly-Greek/Roman focused timelines sounds most interesting?

Also if you have any suggestions I'm all ears.

Majorian’s Restoration: Majorian’s fleet is not destroyed. He invades the Vandal Kingdom, successfully reconquering Africa, giving a breath of life to the Western Roman Empire. During his reign and briefly after, the Western Empire has a renewed period of imperial power… but with the level of Germanization that has already occurred, can this really last?

Fall of Constantinople: In 626, the Avar-Persian siege of Constantinople is a success, leading to a sack of the city and the devastation of the Byzantine Empire, which is exiled to Italy, forming a small, Latinized thalassocracy. The Persians annex Egypt, Syria, and Anatolia, while the Avars take the Balkans. However, in the late 630s, religious crisis hits the Sassanian Empire…

A Greater Empire of the East: Basil II the Bulgar-Slayer’s brother, Constantine VIII, has a son, Romanus, who is heir to the Byzantine throne. Mentored, trained, and promoted to strategos by his uncle, he becomes essentially a “Second Basil” who leads the Byzantine Empire to greater heights than ever before. Over centuries, this may or may not lead to an entire, generations-long reconquest of Mediterranean basin, and the badass medieval Greek Orthodox recreation of Augustus’ Roman Empire.

The Anglo-Byzantine Norman Empire: Harald Hardrada defeats Harold Godwinson at Stamford Bridge. But William does not fall so easily. Three years of bloody warfare devastate England, until William seemingly triumphs. But with the Danish invasion of 1069, William is deposed. Under Danish rule and constant rebellions by Saxon pretenders, both Normans and Saxons flee to the Mediterranean. The Norman-English war never really ends, with Norman Sicily and a Byzantine Empire ruled by the Saxon Varangian Guard fighting to influence the nascent Crusader States.

The Sino-Roman Cold War: Caesar is not assassinated, and invades Parthia. He conquers it entirely, and despite a century of challenges, it becomes a full part of the Roman Republic--with all the Persianization of the West that entails. Meanwhile, in the East, the Han Empire preempts the Tang conquest of Central Asia, setting up military and trade outposts in the western deserts. After something like the Battle of Talas, where the Romans are humiliatingly defeated by China, the Romans decide to expand their influence in the east. The Han expand their influence in the west. And the two greatest empires of the time begin a series of wars that can only lead to their mutual destruction.

Alexander the Failure: Alexander “the Great” is killed at the Battle of the Granicus. While Macedonia is able to briefly take some parts of Anatolia, Hellenization never spreads east, and the Achaemenid Empire survives for another century.

Macedonia Eternal: Most ‘Alexander the Great survives’ scenarios don’t quite go all the way, perhaps in the interest of pesky “balance”. Well, in this one, not only does Alexander the Great live; he is lucky enough to live to the age of 70. Over his long lifetime, he conquers every civilization in his reach, and upon his death, Alexander rules over an empire that is fairly stable and both Hellenized and Persianized. After his death, this massively overstretched empire falls into even greater ruin than OTL, excluding a stable core around Babylon. But the cultural links created between Hellenism, Buddhism, Zoroastrianism, Persian imperial tradition, Greek philosophical tradition, and all of the regions in the empire create a very interesting Antiquity.
 
Man so many good option :D.

I would love to see the Anglo-Byz War, but the Cold War and Majoran would be great TL's.

For now I can't expand on this idea because I am on the phone but I will post my thoughts latter.
 
I vote for the Fall of Constantinople scenario and propose Sicily as the power base of the exiled Byzantines.

Would Islam be even stronger Persian influences in this scenario?
 
Macedonia Eternal: Most ‘Alexander the Great survives’ scenarios don’t quite go all the way, perhaps in the interest of pesky “balance”. Well, in this one, not only does Alexander the Great live; he is lucky enough to live to the age of 70. Over his long lifetime, he conquers every civilization in his reach, and upon his death, Alexander rules over an empire that is fairly stable and both Hellenized and Persianized. After his death, this massively overstretched empire falls into even greater ruin than OTL, excluding a stable core around Babylon. But the cultural links created between Hellenism, Buddhism, Zoroastrianism, Persian imperial tradition, Greek philosophical tradition, and all of the regions in the empire create a very interesting Antiquity.

Pax Macedonia FTW.
 

Deleted member 93645

I vote for the Fall of Constantinople scenario and propose Sicily as the power base of the exiled Byzantines.

I was thinking that the Byzantines would rule from Syracuse or Carthage at first, but decades later, move their capital back to Rome as the smaller Lombard states in the south are pushed out.

Would there be a fairly large exodus of Byzantines from the Avar Khaganate? I think there would, because the Byzantines would retain control of coasts and islands due to their navy, and they would fear the pagan barbarian Avars and their undoubtedly brutal methods of conquest.

Of course, only some nobles, soldiers, and merchants would manage to leave, logistically. But it could be enough to strengthen Byzantine Sicily (and weaken Hellenization in the East).

Would Islam be even stronger Persian influences in this scenario?

Possibly. The Persians would be greatly overextended though, and Syria, Egypt, and Anatolia wouldn't really be Persianized at all by the time the Arabs take over.

But the butterfly effect could lead to a different Islam anyway, since many historians believe that Islam didn't fully become a concrete, codified faith until the 700s/800s (much like how Christianity also took centuries to do so).
 
<snip>
The Sino-Roman Cold War: Caesar is not assassinated, and invades Parthia. He conquers it entirely, and despite a century of challenges, it becomes a full part of the Roman Republic--with all the Persianization of the West that entails. Meanwhile, in the East, the Han Empire preempts the Tang conquest of Central Asia, setting up military and trade outposts in the western deserts. After something like the Battle of Talas, where the Romans are humiliatingly defeated by China, the Romans decide to expand their influence in the east. The Han expand their influence in the west. And the two greatest empires of the time begin a series of wars that can only lead to their mutual destruction.
<snip>

This is ASB. Even Mesopotamia can only be held very briefly. Actually conquering the entire Parthian Empire and holding it for a century is impossible.
 

Deleted member 93645

This is ASB. Even Mesopotamia can only be held very briefly. Actually conquering the entire Parthian Empire and holding it for a century is impossible.

As evidenced by the Umayyads, it's clearly not impossible. Especially if Rome splits on east-west axis earlier, with Byzantion or Babylon becoming the eastern capital.
 
NORMAN-BYZANTINE EMPIRE???!!! WHAAAAAAAT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!?????????????????????????????

NO. WAY.

Sorry. Got a little excited there. Honestly though, how the hell do you end up with a Norman-Byzantine Empire? I have got to know!
 
As evidenced by the Umayyads, it's clearly not impossible. Especially if Rome splits on east-west axis earlier, with Byzantion or Babylon becoming the eastern capital.

I'm assuming you mean Rashidun here.

At the time of the Rashidun, the ERE and the Sassanids were both in severe crisis. It was only this weakness that allowed Persia to be conquered. Furthermore, the situations of both are very different. For example, Rashidun Iran wasn't even conquered by one person.

There are reasons why the Romans never conquered Persia after Caesar and it's not because he's the only Great Man who could do so.
 

Deleted member 93645

I'm assuming you mean Rashidun here.

At the time of the Rashidun, the ERE and the Sassanids were both in severe crisis. It was only this weakness that allowed Persia to be conquered. Furthermore, the situations of both are very different. For example, Rashidun Iran wasn't even conquered by one person.

The Parthian Empire in the 40s BC was stronger than the Sassanid Empire in the 640s AD, sure, but so was the Roman Republic as compared to the Rashidun.

There are reasons why the Romans never conquered Persia after Caesar and it's not because he's the only Great Man who could do so.
It's because he never got the chance to do so, with being assassinated and all.

Trajan, Marcus Aurelius, and Septimius Severus all decisively defeated the Parthians, sacking their capital. They just didn't have the political or economic will to continue and conquer Parthia.

Republican era figures, especially Caesar, have the full motivation to go through with the annexation. Certainly Persia offers more than Gaul.
 
The Parthian Empire in the 40s BC was stronger than the Sassanid Empire in the 640s AD, sure, but so was the Roman Republic as compared to the Rashidun.

It's because he never got the chance to do so, with being assassinated and all.

Trajan, Marcus Aurelius, and Septimius Severus all decisively defeated the Parthians, sacking their capital. They just didn't have the political or economic will to continue and conquer Parthia.

Republican era figures, especially Caesar, have the full motivation to go through with the annexation. Certainly Persia offers more than Gaul.

It's not about which state is stronger at each time. It's about how if the muslims hadn't invaded, the Sassanids would still finished and the subsequent dynasty would also be severely weakened afterwards. Contrast this with the Parthians which stuck around for another 260 something years. The Sassanids were finished and the Rashidun filled the void. There is no such void available for the Romans.

Why is the Republic so much more well-suited to conquering Parthia than the Empire?
 
Neither a Hellenophile or a Romanophile, so I vote for Fall of Constantinople because it screws them. :^)
 
It's not about which state is stronger at each time. It's about how if the muslims hadn't invaded, the Sassanids would still finished and the subsequent dynasty would also be severely weakened afterwards. Contrast this with the Parthians which stuck around for another 260 something years. The Sassanids were finished and the Rashidun filled the void. There is no such void available for the Romans.

Why is the Republic so much more well-suited to conquering Parthia than the Empire?

They're hungry enough and careless enough to make an obvious bad decision and make it work in the long-run.
 

scholar

Banned
It's not about which state is stronger at each time. It's about how if the muslims hadn't invaded, the Sassanids would still finished and the subsequent dynasty would also be severely weakened afterwards. Contrast this with the Parthians which stuck around for another 260 something years. The Sassanids were finished and the Rashidun filled the void. There is no such void available for the Romans.

Why is the Republic so much more well-suited to conquering Parthia than the Empire?
Sorry, but no. There was almost no evidence that the Sassanians were on their way out even with an exhausted empire until after the invaders had taken a good deal of their territory. Even then, Sassanian royal rebels were being housed as far east as the Tang court, and Sassanian Nobility were fighting wars for reconquest in Afghanistan and Central Asia for upwards of a century.

Parthia on the other hand was constantly on the verge of being toppled, and its royal struggles toppled itself several times. It is just the last time one of those happened it led to a resurgence of the Persians under the Sassanians.

This doesn't make conquest likely, but its not impossible.
 

Deleted member 93645

Why is the Republic so much more well-suited to conquering Parthia than the Empire?

The Roman Republic isn't more suited to conquering Parthia; both the Republic and Empire would be technically capable.

But an ambitious, wealthy Roman Republican like Caesar or Crassus or Marc Antony had the motivation and will to conquer Parthia. It personally would make him the richest and most powerful person in the Republic, and allow him to rise to the top of the power struggles of the late Republic.

On the other hand, for a Roman Emperor, conquering Parthia isn't desirable. The Emperor is already god among men. He already has the whole Mediterranean basin and everything he wants, so Parthia is an expense to him. The only thing the Emperor would want is to sack the Parthian capital, which multiple Emperors successfully did.

For the Romans, it's the difference between wanting to have everything, versus already having everything and not wanting to lose it.
 
Top