AHC: anti-cliche classical era

[Chiropteroid]

We have all seen our share of alternate (and otl) history cliches and I for one think it would be refreshing to create a timeline without them.

Basically the idea is to first tally up all possible cliches related to the classical era alternate history and either avert or reverse them, with realistic consideration, of course.

First, let us collect the cliches. You can also add those cliches that contradict each other, we'll cut them out later

I have these cliches related to Roman Empire
- Rome survives if the germans don't invade, despite the historical economic problems
- Winning wars against the parthians
- Always becomes an empire

What else do we have?

 

[BBadolato]

The Sassanids are always screwed

 

[Deleted member 67076]

The Germans always invade Rome.

The Huns always invade Rome

Either Rome or Carthage is destroyed

Western Rome never makes it to the Middle Ages

Britain is always balkanized after Romans pull out, just in time for the Saxons to invade and conquer

 

[MNP]

-Alexander never fails
-Always a split between west-east Christian churches/sects

 

[carlton_bach]

- A minor technological change can reverse the tide of history

- the Roman army is a paragon of discipline and organisation

- Greek city states will wither and die when they come under barbarian rule

- Polytheism isn't really a serious religion, it's what people do until real religions become available

- the Roman people desired freedom and would welcome a "restoration of the Republic"

- there was, meaningfully, such a thing as a "Republic"/"Empire" transition point

- peripheral cultures of the classical world never really change, they are just there

 

[Pericles]

The Achaemenids were in decline when Alexander came along and they'll soon collapse.
Rome must always emerge
The barbarians were well....barbarians.
Roman Empire means a better world-did anybody even ask the Jews, Carthaginians, Celts etc etc
Carthage wanks

 

[ArKhan]

The Draka, The Race, and Hitler will allways show up.

 

[Pericles]

The Draka, The Race, and Hitler will allways show up.

Hey, ArKhan, this is before 1900.

 

[ArKhan]

Hey, ArKhan, this is before 1900.

Sorry, I thought this was "Annoying cliché" in general.

 

[SlyDessertFox]

-The eastern half of the Roman Empire always has to survive longer than the western half
-the Huns always invade the same way otl

 

[Chiropteroid]

First of all, thank you for your contributions.

Now comes the next phase: reversal and reasoning. The intent is to now avert or reverse the available cliches and explain, how it would be plausible. I give a few examples.

First one for huns:
ERE falls Before WRE/ Huns use a different invasion pattern.
A possible reason would be that Attila pulls a Cortez and pillages ERE despite receiving a gold tribute. Though he didn't do it IOTL, he is a person who could do it: A psychopath destroying for the sake of destruction, interested only in naked power and money. A terrorist without a vision

And one for Alexander:
Alexander fails/ Achaemenid empire keeps prospering
Alexander III dies in battle during the persian campaign. Like many generals, Alexander fought in the front lines, putting his life at risk. One lucky shot by an arrow could stop a macedonian invasion. Not many of Alexander's troops agreed with his idea of world conquest, which could be seen in the OTL near the end of Alexander's campaign

once again, contradictive happenings are still accepted, and if there are more cliches, you can still note them.

 

[SlyDessertFox]

Speaking of one lucky shot by an arrow...He got an arrow in his lung and still survived. You need that arrow to go straight through his heart to kill him.

 

[Chiropteroid]

Speaking of one lucky shot by an arrow...He got an arrow in his lung and still survived. You need that arrow to go straight through his heart to kill him.

Yeah, but it happened during the Indian campaign.

The point is that Alexander's body and men can be broken, but not his mind. He's too stubborn (and mad) to accept defeat. If he loses a battle and lives, he would just return with a new army (or at least attempt to).

 

[Mr. Magi]

Wasn't Alexander nearly killed at Granicus? Just have Spithridates kill him there and bam, you have the Macedonians leave and go home. And thus the Achaemenids last for a decent while longer.

 

[Basileus Giorgios]

- Rome survives if the germans don't invade, despite the historical economic problems

Elaborate on these "historical economic problems", please. If anything, I think it's more cliche for people to assume Rome was doomed to collapse due to these "historical economic problems".

- Polytheism isn't really a serious religion, it's what people do until real religions become available

- there was, meaningfully, such a thing as a "Republic"/"Empire" transition point

I'd take issue with these two. Graeco-Roman polytheism really wasn't a "religion" as we think of religion. It was much more about traditions and omens than structured belief systems and holy books.

First one for huns:
ERE falls Before WRE/ Huns use a different invasion pattern.
A possible reason would be that Attila pulls a Cortez and pillages ERE despite receiving a gold tribute. Though he didn't do it IOTL, he is a person who could do it: A psychopath destroying for the sake of destruction, interested only in naked power and money. A terrorist without a vision

How does Attila take Constantinople? How does he attain the naval superiority needed to properly take over the East?

I'm of the opinion that Attila the Hun was a bit of a paper tiger.

 

[Elfwine]

What's interesting about the WRE's fall is that it seems less a matter of "conquered, with Rome as the last city to fall" (as in some sense happened to the Byzantines in 1453) as a seemingly mostly intact border - and an increasingly "barbarian" territory behind (looking at the maps of 420 and 451 for The New Penguin Atlas of Medieval History) - especially in Iberia, but also western Gaul (ignoring the Vandals, who don't control that much of - if an important part of - the African coast).

That poses worrisome questions on just how much of the WRE is really controlled by Rome (or Ravenna, if you prefer) -as opposed to nominally in the empire but not practically answering to either the tax man or the enlistment officers.


While we're looking at the state of the WRE OTL, I figured that should be examined in any attempt at averting cliches on it - since that kind of thing is just as bad as a "failing economy" in the sense of 19th century Spain or some other state past its economic peak.

 

[Chiropteroid]

Wasn't Alexander nearly killed at Granicus? Just have Spithridates kill him there and bam, you have the Macedonians leave and go home. And thus the Achaemenids last for a decent while longer.

Good to know.

Elaborate on these "historical economic problems", please. If anything, I think it's more cliche for people to assume Rome was doomed to collapse due to these "historical economic problems".

Good point. Well, I used a comment from the original pre-1900 cliches thread and I guess I got it quite abridged. The original cliche was about Roman Empire surviving without germanic and vandal invasions and one of the points of this not working was a weak economic base and poor fiscal system (others being Rome's political system of Absolute monarchy tempered with militaristic anarchy and the continued existence of ERE)

And yes, assumption of simple economic collapse is also a cliche. In OTL WRE slowly withered away into rump states, Emperors becoming puppets to local warlords and finally the entire Empire got replaced by Ostrogothic kingdom.

How does Attila take Constantinople? How does he attain the naval superiority needed to properly take over the East?

I'm of the opinion that Attila the Hun was a bit of a paper tiger.

I have to admit I wasn't really aware at first that Attila actually attempted to fight the Sassanids once and failed (should have used wikipedia instead of history channel). As for Attila's attack, I originally thought that he wouldn't use ships but would simply go through the walls (I don't know how strong they were before Theodosius II strengthened them, while Attila was busy with the Sassanids)

But yeah, maybe Attila wasn't that strong and his invasion of ERE, if attempted, would have been a failure (he raided the balkans, yes, but that's it). Though he certainly knew how to scare people.

Also, the only battle I know he fought in was Chalons (which he lost).

Out of curiosity, are there any other cliches or frequently made mistakes related to WRE?

EDIT: Also I think it's time to take a step backwards and reconsider, how to use the available cliches. Any ideas?

 

[Deleted member 67076]

Good to know.
Out of curiosity, are there any other cliches or frequently made mistakes related to WRE?

The west always is destroyed.

It never assimilates the Germans

Some new technology prevents it destruction

Once it loses an area, it never reclaims it

Western Stagnation

Its never prosperous after 450 AD

 

[SlyDessertFox]

The idea that the western Roman Empire was extremely weak and barely holding itself up as it entered the 5th century is a cliche that gets used a lot, but simply isn't true.

 

[Elfwine]

The idea that the western Roman Empire was extremely weak and barely holding itself up as it entered the 5th century is a cliche that gets used a lot, but simply isn't true.

Which is why it was so utterly crushed by disaster, all that somehow overlooked strength somehow never materialized.

We've gone over this, but for thread's sake, anyone who wants to have a surviving WRE in the fifth century really needs to be able to explain how the state is able to disprove that (in red).

States have faced military disasters without dissolving (the ERE in the seventh century, for example, or the Roman Republic in the Second Punic War).

I don't think it would serve the purposes of the thread to repeat the argument for its own sake (we know what the other thinks) - but if one is going to look for a WRE survival IN a scenario, one has to come up with something more satisfactory than claiming the WRE really wasn't that weak.