AHC - Worst possible timeline for post Roman Europe?
- Thread starter theSmartPenguin23
- Start date
kholieken
Banned
Seconded. Europe united under Caliphate would be different, but not worse off. United, piracy free Med might even make Europe better position than Dark Age.
Sassanid is also civilized Empire. Their success might change history, but not necessarily worse off.
Worst possible TL is probably more frequent Black Death events (but less severe than the one we got), northern Europe struggles to get past the dark age, with no Charlemagne meaning no France or HRE, Italy is devastated by conflicts between the caliphs, Byzantines and locals, the Moors raid southern France for everything it has then suffer a messy collapse while more hordes invade from the east. Add in some Mongol wank and the Byzantines collapsing into several warring successor states for good measure.
There isn't really any medieval era here, any sort of renaissance thing will be much later and probably come from Greece, most of europe is divided and devastated and the middle east isn't much better. Eventually unified states like England, a northern France + Benelux thing etc will develop but I don't see America being discovered (or settled anyway) until the 1700s at least. Technology is anywhere from 100-250 years behind OTL. The good news is climate change isn't an issue.
There isn't really any medieval era here, any sort of renaissance thing will be much later and probably come from Greece, most of europe is divided and devastated and the middle east isn't much better. Eventually unified states like England, a northern France + Benelux thing etc will develop but I don't see America being discovered (or settled anyway) until the 1700s at least. Technology is anywhere from 100-250 years behind OTL. The good news is climate change isn't an issue.
As people have remarked, 'worst' here is definitely something that needs to be defined. Outside of natural phenomena like an asteroid wiping everybody out, my definition of 'worst' involves the most amount of people experiencing the most amount of deprivation (material + non-material like 'freedom') over the most amount of time.
In my view, this involves a) populations reaching the limit of the European economy's 'carrying capacity' (so there is barely enough for everybody to simply survive); b) no opportunity to expand said carrying capacity through discovery of new markets or technology; and c) extreme lack of non-material goods (constant fear + rigidly-enforced prohibitions against free thought). The result would be a miserable, oppressed and technologically stagnant population that achieves little else beyond replicating itself and is forever at the brink of demographic disaster, sort of like 1984 crossed with pre-Black Death Europe.
I think we can best approximate these conditions with a pan-European Empire that is overwhelmingly agrarian (minimal ability to accumulate capital surplus through trade), overwhelmingly unequal (nobles getting all of the gains while everybody else is a serf), rigidly doctrinaire (so no 'new thoughts'), and has the most comprehensive surveillance + punishment system possible with premodern technology.
The best candidate might be a surviving Frankish/Holy Roman Empire that eventually dominates much of Europe. Said Empire also coopts the bureaucracy of the Catholic Church to extend a rigid doctrine of social control into every parish, rooting out + punishing even the slightest wrongthink (which includes questioning 'official' scientific theories). At the same time, this Empire deliberately or unintentionally allows the nobility to extract as much wealth from peasants, reducing a large number to being serfs or even slaves. The nobility themselves, apart from being the prime targets of surveillance, would also be encouraged to fritter away their capital either in Versailles-like decadence, or in idle religiosity.
In my view, this involves a) populations reaching the limit of the European economy's 'carrying capacity' (so there is barely enough for everybody to simply survive); b) no opportunity to expand said carrying capacity through discovery of new markets or technology; and c) extreme lack of non-material goods (constant fear + rigidly-enforced prohibitions against free thought). The result would be a miserable, oppressed and technologically stagnant population that achieves little else beyond replicating itself and is forever at the brink of demographic disaster, sort of like 1984 crossed with pre-Black Death Europe.
I think we can best approximate these conditions with a pan-European Empire that is overwhelmingly agrarian (minimal ability to accumulate capital surplus through trade), overwhelmingly unequal (nobles getting all of the gains while everybody else is a serf), rigidly doctrinaire (so no 'new thoughts'), and has the most comprehensive surveillance + punishment system possible with premodern technology.
The best candidate might be a surviving Frankish/Holy Roman Empire that eventually dominates much of Europe. Said Empire also coopts the bureaucracy of the Catholic Church to extend a rigid doctrine of social control into every parish, rooting out + punishing even the slightest wrongthink (which includes questioning 'official' scientific theories). At the same time, this Empire deliberately or unintentionally allows the nobility to extract as much wealth from peasants, reducing a large number to being serfs or even slaves. The nobility themselves, apart from being the prime targets of surveillance, would also be encouraged to fritter away their capital either in Versailles-like decadence, or in idle religiosity.
kholieken
Banned
Vikings ? travelling nomad ? In fairness, Magyar and Huns did eventually settle down, but migratory/raiding tribes cause great damage until they settle down.
Maybe combine this with such an empire getting partitioned and colonized by Asian imperialists after they fall behind said Asian imperial powers from their crackdown on "wrongthink" leading to technological stagnation?
Last edited:
How realistic is this scenario though? Is there any real example one can compare this to?
Why, pray tell, would an Islamic Europe be as terrible as Hunnish massacres? Or as bad as a Mongol invasion with the inevitable piles of skulls for that matter?
Islam didn't have a "Dark Ages". Islamic rulers were no more or less likely to be religious fanatics than their Christian counterparts, some justified savagery "in the Name of Allah", just as any number of bloody sacks happened "Deus Vult".
To be fair, a prolonged Islamic conquest would be more disastrous for Northern Europe if it is consistent and slowly pushing, as in Hindustan than a Hunnic ruled Northern Europe. Precisely because the Huns were already indigenous to Europe, heavily enmeshed with the local religious tradition of Arianism, Germanic paganism and mainline Chalcedonian Christianity. Furthermore, the Huns were undeniably tolerant of local ruling elite, without need for those ruling elites to change; indeed the varied Germanic lords under the Huns had no issue following the Huns, nor did they have a heavy yoke. In may respects, the Huns would affirm European mores in Northern Europe and strengthen their underlining mentalities.
In contrast, a long term push northward by a major Islamic state, would be much like Hindustan, likely destructive and will cause greater resistance than there prior existed. This will also strengthen raiding as a counter among peoples north of the Alps as a way to counter the bhagi of the Islamic states, or the raiding that is incumbent upon Muhjahid realms.
Now, should Islam spread more by trade and connection, than by the expansion of a powerful state, the experience will indeed be different.
Which, of course, is exactly the point that I was addressing.