A brief statement on 'Wankery'

[RoyalPsycho]

The concept of wanking on Alternate history has always existed in Alternate history and is often wishful thinking on the part of the Author for plot reasons or personal preferences.
It of course is insufferable in so many cases seeing a nation rise to near absolute supremacy with little effort and no consequences and establishes an eternal hegemony that will never die. Something that must be realised is that no matter now powerful or enormous a nation may become it will die. Every super Empire like the Romans, Germans or British believed. However even modern powers believe this and one day the United States of America, Russian Federation and People's Republic of china will all wither and die one day like Rome, Mongolia and Britain did.
However a wanked nation is not impossible. The Alexandrian Empire rose from a small backward state to the largest Empire yet existed in just 7-8 years. Genghis Khan created an Empire that stretched from Persia to Korea in around a decade and the British Empire took over a quarter of the planet in under a century. However whilst they did this they didn't last forever despite their power and determination to survive.

 

[Color-Copycat]

Sounds about right to me. Not certain what you're getting at, as most authors of wanks are quite cognizant about what they're getting into in terms of wishful thinking.

 

[Cymraeg]

I'm still waiting for a TL on the unstoppable rise of the grand empire of Lichtenstein!

 

[mowque]

Ok, any reason you decided to post this with your weeks of long experience?

 

[QuoProQuid]

I genuinely dislike wanks. There are one or two exceptions to that, but a vast majority of wanks are poorly though-out messes that fail to fully grasp reality.

 

[Nassirisimo]

Macedon may have been backward before Philip, but to call it a backwards state when Alexander took the throne is incorrect, as it was the owner of perhaps the most effective army in the world at that point, as well as being the hegemonic power of Greece. So Wankery is even less common then you may think.

 

[TheNordicBrit]

"Be not afraid of greatness: some are born great, some achieve greatness and some have greatness thrust upon them".

 

[El Danoo]

The concept of wanking on Alternate history has always existed in Alternate history and is often wishful thinking on the part of the Author for plot reasons or personal preferences.
It of course is insufferable in so many cases seeing a nation rise to near absolute supremacy with little effort and no consequences and establishes an eternal hegemony that will never die. Something that must be realised is that no matter now powerful or enormous a nation may become it will die. Every super Empire like the Romans, Germans or British believed. However even modern powers believe this and one day the united States of America, Russian Federation and People's Republic of china will all wither and die one day like Rome, Mongolia and Britain did.
However a wanked nation is not impossible. The Alexandrian Empire rose from a small backward state to the largest Empire yet existed in just 7-8 years. Genghis Khan created an Empire that stretched from Persia to Korea in around a decade and the British Empire took over a quarter of the planet in under a century. However whilst they did this they didn't last forever despite their power and determination to survive.

My two pennies on wankery.

Most of the earlier 'superpowers' suffered from the most simple of problems: communication. The fastest way to tell someone some news was via horse-back, which obviously is not instantaneous. Example, Gaul is invaded by German tribes, news would not reach Rome for many weeks/months since such news would only be a fast as the fastest horse. Even then most of the Roman Empire would most likely be ignorant of the invasion.

This relatively simple problem would last almost until the Second World War but now modern countries such as the USA, China and Russia have the ability to transmit thoughts and idea around the world in seconds (providing a good internet) and thus can alert their military bases within minutes to hours during an invasion.

The second problem is related to the first: transport. Even if, continuing with the German invasion of Gaul, news of the invasion arrived quickly to, say Rome where the leaders of the empire and its military are stationed, it would take additional time for the military to respond to the invasion. Think about it. Most nations have a small standing army during peace-time, which expands during times of war. With an expanded army requires expanded logistics to feed and water the men and animals going to war. It also requires a series of road for quick mobility of the soldier, many of which will most likely be walking to the conflict. This all takes time.

In modern day, however, with the news of invasion being almost instant to commander centres and military bases, the logistics again need to expand but that isn't hard when you can resupply your soldier via the air. The same system can also deploy soldiers.

The Romans indeed had one of the greatest military possible for that time period, however, because it had expanded so far, it had a large border to defend against many, many enemies, all of which didn't help if you have internal strife or succession issues. The Roman Empire suffered from both communication and transport issues. The British Empire indeed was the largest but a combination of two destructive world war drained it to where it was basically needed America to hold it up. All of the British Empire was oversea's - e.g. Canada, India meaning its lines of communications and transport of soldiers were only as fast as the navy could be, not to mention its colonies wanting to be free of British rule. The German Empire, well, it picked on too many enemies and was led by a military inept man but as it tried to invade Russia, its lines of transport were especially tested by the harsh winter, which we all knew stopped advancement of soldiers as well as stopping reinforcements and supplies to the front line. I not sure about communication though.

Anyway, this could all be hogwash and I may have a lot of time on my hands to deliver such a response but modern nations do not suffer from such problems, generally. Make of its what you will, I have given a generalised answer to why such earlier empire declined. Obviously this answer will be ripped apart by the entire of AH

 

[Advernt]

The concept of Wanks boils down to this simple premise: everything that can go right for a country , goes right for it. Make of the realism of that as you will.

 

[wcv215]

The concept of Wanks boils down to this simple premise: everything that can go right for a country , goes right for it. Make of the realism of that as you will.

But even there it is possible. Consider the example of the United States. For the first 150 years or so of its existence basically everything went right for it. It doubled in size for 15 million dollars with Louisiania. It survived the War of 1812 and established itself as a player on the world stage. It almost doubled in size again after defeating Mexico. The ACW looks like an avoidance of that but even there, it united the country in a way it had never been before and just thirty years later the U.S. defeated a former major power and took Cuba, the Phillipines, etc.

All of this and it developed the most powerful economy in the world by WWI and had more than the rest of the world combined in WWII. Now that wankery is starting to die down, but it happened.

Other examples would be Mongolia under Genghis Khan, or the Arab invasion of Persia and Byzantium. Both involved loosely organized armies that conquered, defeated, or destroyed great empires that should have been able to win relatively easily.

 

[RoyalPsycho]

Sounds about right to me. Not certain what you're getting at, as most authors of wanks are quite cognizant about what they're getting into in terms of wishful thinking.

I'm just telling everyone my thoughts on the matter. I mean I'm no innocent of this but there are just someones that piss me off .

 

[RoyalPsycho]

Macedon may have been backward before Philip, but to call it a backwards state when Alexander took the throne is incorrect, as it was the owner of perhaps the most effective army in the world at that point, as well as being the hegemonic power of Greece. So Wankery is even less common then you may think.

I meant backward in comparison to it's rivals and yet it rose to supremacy so quickly and whatsmore is that it's enemies were not a decaying superpower either the Persians were still strong and dynamic.

 

[RoyalPsycho]

My two pennies on wankery.

Most of the earlier 'superpowers' suffered from the most simple of problems: communication. The fastest way to tell someone some news was via horse-back, which obviously is not instantaneous. Example, Gaul is invaded by German tribes, news would not reach Rome for many weeks/months since such news would only be a fast as the fastest horse. Even then most of the Roman Empire would most likely be ignorant of the invasion.

This relatively simple problem would last almost until the Second World War but now modern countries such as the USA, China and Russia have the ability to transmit thoughts and idea around the world in seconds (providing a good internet) and thus can alert their military bases within minutes to hours during an invasion.

The second problem is related to the first: transport. Even if, continuing with the German invasion of Gaul, news of the invasion arrived quickly to, say Rome where the leaders of the empire and its military are stationed, it would take additional time for the military to respond to the invasion. Think about it. Most nations have a small standing army during peace-time, which expands during times of war. With an expanded army requires expanded logistics to feed and water the men and animals going to war. It also requires a series of road for quick mobility of the soldier, many of which will most likely be walking to the conflict. This all takes time.

In modern day, however, with the news of invasion being almost instant to commander centres and military bases, the logistics again need to expand but that isn't hard when you can resupply your soldier via the air. The same system can also deploy soldiers.

The Romans indeed had one of the greatest military possible for that time period, however, because it had expanded so far, it had a large border to defend against many, many enemies, all of which didn't help if you have internal strife or succession issues. The Roman Empire suffered from both communication and transport issues. The British Empire indeed was the largest but a combination of two destructive world war drained it to where it was basically needed America to hold it up. All of the British Empire was oversea's - e.g. Canada, India meaning its lines of communications and transport of soldiers were only as fast as the navy could be, not to mention its colonies wanting to be free of British rule. The German Empire, well, it picked on too many enemies and was led by a military inept man but as it tried to invade Russia, its lines of transport were especially tested by the harsh winter, which we all knew stopped advancement of soldiers as well as stopping reinforcements and supplies to the front line. I not sure about communication though.

Anyway, this could all be hogwash and I may have a lot of time on my hands to deliver such a response but modern nations do not suffer from such problems, generally. Make of its what you will, I have given a generalised answer to why such earlier empire declined. Obviously this answer will be ripped apart by the entire of AH

You're points are completely valid and your arguments on moden logistics is completely valid. However that logistic chain is almost overstretched and disturbingly fragile if you take into consideration how much it relys on cheap and available fuel sources thata re rapidly diminishing and thus their strength is disappearing and they will inevitably decline, shrink and maybe even fracture under their own weight befiore they are wiped out or rally behind a rump remnant state.
However that aside I was just venting at the time and I never expected a response at all and I am flattered that my opinions attracted this much attention and controversy.

 

[doublegoodprole]

My problem isn't wankery--it can be fun--but rather people's tendency to bog timelines down with insanely boring minutiae. If you have a USA wank starting in 1776, you should not only be in the 1830's 500 pages later!

 

[RoyalPsycho]

My problem isn't wankery--it can be fun--but rather people's tendency to bog timelines down with insanely boring minutiae. If you have a USA wank starting in 1776, you should not only be in the 1830's 500 pages later!

Especially if most wanks involve a broad generalisation to get you're results.

 

[Beedok]

I genuinely dislike wanks. There are one or two exceptions to that, but a vast majority of wanks are poorly though-out messes that fail to fully grasp reality.

I hope I haven't made any (overly) unrealistic wanks.

But yeah, for me even the greatest wank only makes a nation the top power for so long.

 

[Tallest Skil]

My problem isn't wankery--it can be fun--but rather people's tendency to bog timelines down with insanely boring minutiae. If you have a USA wank starting in 1776, you should not only be in the 1830's 500 pages later!

So you're whining about how "long" and "tedious" you think The United States of Ameriwank is (for whatever incorrect reason) while ignoring the fact that it's on v2 in that thread and Tex originally got to the late 1870s?

 

[Tripwire]

But even there it is possible. Consider the example of the United States. For the first 150 years or so of its existence basically everything went right for it. It doubled in size for 15 million dollars with Louisiania. It survived the War of 1812 and established itself as a player on the world stage. It almost doubled in size again after defeating Mexico. The ACW looks like an avoidance of that but even there, it united the country in a way it had never been before and just thirty years later the U.S. defeated a former major power and took Cuba, the Phillipines, etc.

All of this and it developed the most powerful economy in the world by WWI and had more than the rest of the world combined in WWII. Now that wankery is starting to die down, but it happened.

But really, it would have been hard for the U.S. to fail at this, just due to simple geography. I consider the rise of British Empire, with one European country ruling a quarter of the globe and surpassing all the other European powers, much more of an unlikely outcome than the U.S.

The rise of the U.S. on the other hand, was easily predictable even hundreds of years beforehand. Adam Smith predicted it would become more populous and powerful than Great Britain in The Wealth of Nations way back in 1776. By the 1770s there were far more Americans on the continent than any other group, so expansion into the very sparsely populated west was more of a forgone conclusion. France essentially had no possibility of hanging on to the greater Louisiana territory, because its only actual population was in and around New Orleans. The U.S. would have taken it one way or another.

And then once you have all that territory, it's going to be filled up with settlers, which is obviously going to greatly increase the total population and economy, which in a wealthy country like the U.S. is going to mean a great increase in power.

So no, I don't think the rise of U.S was a wank at all, just lucky geographical placement.

 

[RoyalPsycho]

But really, it would have been hard for the U.S. to fail at this, just due to simple geography. I consider the rise of British Empire, with one European country ruling a quarter of the globe and surpassing all the other European powers, much more of an unlikely outcome than the U.S.

The rise of the U.S. on the other hand, was easily predictable even hundreds of years beforehand. Adam Smith predicted it would become more populous and powerful than Great Britain in The Wealth of Nations way back in 1776. By the 1770s there were far more Americans on the continent than any other group, so expansion into the very sparsely populated west was more of a forgone conclusion. France essentially had no possibility of hanging on to the greater Louisiana territory, because its only actual population was in and around New Orleans. The U.S. would have taken it one way or another.

And then once you have all that territory, it's going to be filled up with settlers, which is obviously going to greatly increase the total population and economy, which in a wealthy country like the U.S. is going to mean a great increase in power.

So no, I don't think the rise of U.S was a wank at all, just lucky geographical placement.

Now that is wankery.
Using the US as an example is a good idea but saying it was inevitable is just annoying. That's like the idea that the US is a divine nation that was destined to become so big and powerful. I know you explained it but that doesn't mean it was inevitable. The french actually could have held onto Lousisiana because they hated the Americans as much as they hated the British so they all would have fought off the Americans and Napoleon was actually somewhat popular in the colony.
Also when you mention the Louisiana invasion idea. Do you know how WEAK the USA was at the time it was a rickety state that just lost the war of 1812 and New England was talking about seceeding and even joining Britain.
Also it is also not going to inevitably fill up especially if you had to fight for it because that would destroy what infrastructure was there and make settling so much more difficult and the other colonial powers would see this as e reason to attack an expansionist and weak USA.

 

[CandyDragon]

Now that is wankery.
Using the US as an example is a good idea but saying it was inevitable is just annoying. That's like the idea that the US is a divine nation that was destined to become so big and powerful. I know you explained it but that doesn't mean it was inevitable. The french actually could have held onto Lousisiana because they hated the Americans as much as they hated the British so they all would have fought off the Americans and Napoleon was actually somewhat popular in the colony.
Also when you mention the Louisiana invasion idea. Do you know how WEAK the USA was at the time it was a rickety state that just lost the war of 1812 and New England was talking about seceeding and even joining Britain.
Also it is also not going to inevitably fill up especially if you had to fight for it because that would destroy what infrastructure was there and make settling so much more difficult and the other colonial powers would see this as e reason to attack an expansionist and weak USA.

France under Napoleon was in no way capable of holding onto Louisiana under American pressure, however weak. Napoleon is busy fighting effectively every other power in Europe.

Additionally, the US didn't lose the war of 1812. They didn't win it either. After both countries realized that it was too expensive to continue, they agreed to a treaty.

It's not so cut and dry as to say that the US is BOUND to reach the Pacific, but as things went in Europe, the US was highly likely to reach the Pacific, given the way that the Europeans were preoccupied with, well, the Europeans.