Ancient civilizations and the world

Leo Caesius

Banned
The point however is that all these outcomes are a longshot and some people are taking it as if these changes will affect what happens in a totally isolated continent and that you can't say Aztecs still exist if Alexander dies early or later or whatever. I was perhaps being a bit extreme, but it still is a longshot of these things occuring and therefore you can't simply say "they can't exist" either.
Well, I thought I covered my bases rather clearly in my initial response:

It is harder to discern a clear chain of ripple effects across the Atlantic, unless you posit pre-*Columbia contacts between the two. Nevertheless, it is certain that the course of history would be altered and that might very well have ramifications for history there as well.
Subsequently, though, I was confronted with responses like these:

I don't see any connection in real world history with Alexander, the Aztecs and the Zulu's.

Dskaar is right about Aztecs, nothing that happens to Alexander is going to change what happens to Mesoamerica.

Part of what we do here allows us to take a certain degree of artistic license. If we posit a strong-Butterfly (Iron Butterfly?) scenario in which the entire world becomes completely unrecognizable within a generation or two after the POD, that scenario would quickly lose the historical aspects that makes counterfactuals so attractive to us. On the other hand, most serious consumers of AH fiction are not going to be able to suspend their disbelief when a Roman Era-POD results in Greece seizing Constantinople and the Aegean coast of Asia Minor from Turkey.
 
Debatable. A few butterflies after Alexander can prevent the birth of thousands of kings. Extreme example: Montezuma's Great-Great-Great...-Great-Great Grandfather is struck by lightning from a new thunderstorm, and dies. Extreme Result: Tarascan Iron-Wielding Empire. Moderate Example: Rainy day. Cortes's expedition doesn't set sail, and another Spaniard lands the next year in Mexico. The stars aren't lined up, the Aztecs don't accept him as Quetzalcoatl, and he dies.

Regarding OP:

1. Why would Alexander lose control of Egypt and Israel? He particularly valued Egypt, as it was where he learned from an oracle that he is the son of Zeus, and he wouldn't be pleased that the Jews refuse to sacrifice in his name. If anything, he'd bring down fire and sword on the Egyptians and Israelites if they try anything. And then he'll conquer Arabia and Sicily (his OTL plan anyway).

2. The Punic Wars honed the Roman Army into a force to be reckoned with, and the presence of another major Mediterranean power makes conquest elsewhere more difficult. Besides, a strong Alexandrian Empire closes off Greece and Illyria (sure to fall into Alexandrian territory) to them. Gaul is the only place they can expand into, but I don't think the Carthaginians would be happy with the Romans becoming so powerful without a good counterweight. In this scenario, Rome is confined to Italy, and Carthage colonizes Spain, North Africa, and Morocco. Unless Alexander conquers them (and the Romans), as he had plans to.

3. Possible. Merchant states of Alexandrian Arabia might be interested in trade with the Africans, who trade ivory and gold for weapons and a general flow of ideas. But not likely. An Alexandrian Empire controlling Persia and Bactria would mean safe land trade to India and China, so the OTL incentive to develop good maritime trade (what led Europe to Africa) doesn't exist for a while, and the lack of Islam (and its missionary culture) prevents the meeting of the Eurasian and African cultures. If anything, Africa is less developed ITTL, unless the Bantu peoples develop an Iron-age civilization on their own.

4. And how will they hold this empire together, or even start it? The Incas, admittedly, did something similar in the Andes, but they had a little something called organized bureaucracy and agriculture. The Apaches and Comanches had neither. They were hunter-gatherers, with little incentive to start farming. Farming leads to Empire, and without farming, no empire of any size can exist.

5. Why would they do that? They did pretty well at holding it together IOTL, as nomads. They could have ruled everything from China to the Rhine, if not for their rather sedentary custom of having to return to Mongolia to elect a new Khan (this stopped them at Vienna). If anything, the best thing to do to the Mongols is to make them more nomadic.


6. The Maori? Sure, they had great canoes, but that alone is insufficient for building an Empire. If they develop bronze-working, I can see them conquering Eastern Australia and parts of Polynesia, but no more. Besides, why would they "Join forces" with the Australian Aboriginals? The latter were hunter-gatherers, the least developed (technologically and bureaucratically) people on earth. Why would the Maori, notoriously violent, bother joining forces with them when they can slaughter whole tribes with a dozen warriors and just outright conquer and enslave them?


7. Why? The Aztecs were certainly up to the task of building Mediterranean-level ships by 1500. They were certainly up to the task of making tar, and glue, and even some degree of nails. This would be sufficient for ships like those of the ancient Greeks and Egyptians. But they didn't, because there was nothing there to get. The Europeans went out for plunder, for resources, for land, and from a divinely-ordained mission of converting the natives. The Aztecs had to gain, at most, some sacrifice victims (there was nothing in the Caribbean or Yucatan or coastal USA that they didn't have within their own territory), but why go so far to obtain them?

1.Well lets say he does keep them. But say for example his empire looses them by 1460, by then i doubt too many political leaders of the empire would really care about Israel and Egypt (the Aztecs are relentlessly raiding cities all across the mediteranean.)
2.Not necessarily, The Romans can easily invade areas of Germania and as far as Scandinavia or the Baltic's if they wanted too.
3.Okay well forget the Zulu's lets say the Bantu Civilization never disappears and as you said do develop an Iron-Age Civilization on their own.
4.Well true, but lets say the Navajos unite them, what would happen then?
5.Okay you've finally got me on your side i guess my dad had me thinking it...
The Mongols become even more nomadic but the question is How? Any ideas anybody.
6.I believe I've decided that they don't do any of this earlier in the thread.
7.Well let's say they just wanted to expand their religion across the world. They also gain even more resources making them capable of building more cities and an enormous empire in doing so.
 
Wasn't the problem with the Zulus that they became a proper state too late? What they did was a massive achievement anyway. They turned from being your standard south African cheifdom into a power capable of defeating the worlds greatest power in a few battles (despite one of the biggest technological gaps ever). What might help the Zulus is if they manage to acquire some advanced weaponary instead of the spears and few muskets that they had OTL. Would any European power be willing to sell the Zulus any armaments? I would guess not, as there was a general concern about arming Blacks, but my knowledge of European-African relations isn't that good, so maybe someone else would know more.
 
(the Aztecs are relentlessly raiding cities all across the mediteranean.)
[Chokes on drink]
Lolwut? The Aztecs raiding the Mediterranean?! No amount of naval supremacy short of conquering Brittania would let them do that. And I can't see the Aztecs under any scenario conquering Brittania, or Gaul, or Iberia, or Morocco.

7.Well let's say they just wanted to expand their religion across the world. They also gain even more resources making them capable of building more cities and an enormous empire in doing so.

This is not impossible, and indeed, I think it's feasible. Say Huitzilpochtli (or however the main Aztec deity's name is said) speaks to an Emperor in a dream, proclaiming that, unless all peoples of the earth spill blood in the name of Huitzilpochtli, Huitzilpochtli will die. Then, you get an Aztec Empire raiding the entire Caribbean, and perhaps doing slave runs down to Peru and up to California. But the Mediterranean is just a little beyond their capabilities. Especially considering the tech gap (Gunpowder and Greek Fire can both make early appearances ITTL, with the greater interconnectedness of the world).

EDIT: @ Nassirisimo: The Zulus had some amount of European firearms IOTL anyway. I read that some Zulus went into battle armed with Brown Bess muskets (standard British Empire armament in 18th and early 19th century). Not impossible for them to gain more.
 
[Chokes on drink]
Lolwut? The Aztecs raiding the Mediterranean?! No amount of naval supremacy short of conquering Brittania would let them do that. And I can't see the Aztecs under any scenario conquering Brittania, or Gaul, or Iberia, or Morocco.



This is not impossible, and indeed, I think it's feasible. Say Huitzilpochtli (or however the main Aztec deity's name is said) speaks to an Emperor in a dream, proclaiming that, unless all peoples of the earth spill blood in the name of Huitzilpochtli, Huitzilpochtli will die. Then, you get an Aztec Empire raiding the entire Caribbean, and perhaps doing slave runs down to Peru and up to California. But the Mediterranean is just a little beyond their capabilities. Especially considering the tech gap (Gunpowder and Greek Fire can both make early appearances ITTL, with the greater interconnectedness of the world).

EDIT: @ Nassirisimo: The Zulus had some amount of European firearms IOTL anyway. I read that some Zulus went into battle armed with Brown Bess muskets (standard British Empire armament in 18th and early 19th century). Not impossible for them to gain more.

The Aztecs are not out to conquer anything that far away. they simply are raiding for resources to make it possible for invasion in the future.
 
The Aztecs are not out to conquer anything that far away. they simply are raiding for resources to make it possible for invasion in the future.


Its still the simple fact that the currents don`t favor them in the Atlantic, they don`t have any type of sailing ship,and they don`t have any reason to go that far. (For resources is not an answer).
 
This is my first map ever so don't expect it to be well made. I used a map from the blank map thread. I hope you like it...
Gold is the Navajos
Red is the Comanche and apache
Green is the Aztec Empire
and Orange is The Mayans

Dilettantes talk about tactics.

Amateurs talk about strategy.

Professionals talk about logistics.

Not to say that you're giving us a lot of tactics or strategy for silly things like that, but the logistics are outright ludicrous. No way you have states with those borders. Also, is "realpolitik fail" a word? Can I say that?

Although arguably you could get a cultural or religious zone to temporarily look that way. Although it still wouldn't make much sense, really.
 
The Aztecs are not out to conquer anything that far away. they simply are raiding for resources to make it possible for invasion in the future.

I don't think you understand how this (history) works.

You need to slow down and do about ten times as much reading as you do writing. A couple months of that and yes, we may have something to talk about.

Right now you have internalized neither the rules by which this site operates, nor those which direct the flow of history. Until you have more firm grasp of both, you will have a great deal of difficulty operating outside the Alien Space Bats and Chat forums.

Good day.
 
Last edited:

Keenir

Banned
I don't think you understand how this (history) works.

You need to slow down and do about ten times as much reading as you do writing. A couple months of that and yes, we may have something to talk about.

Good day.

didn't some folks once (or twice) start making a thread for newcomers to AH? i forget what became of it.


Okay then the Apache-Comanche empire is enormous compared to the Aztec Empire so they think that the gods are helping the opposing empire and so they feel threatened because the gods might be helping the Comanche-Apache Empire.

ah. that. the Aztecs had a solution for that: kill the god helping their enemy.

The Mongols kept travelling, they rarely returned to conquered cities and if they did they didn't stay too long.

is that OTL or this ATL?


1.Well lets say he does keep them. But say for example his empire looses them by 1460, by then i doubt too many political leaders of the empire would really care about Israel and Egypt

if Egypt and Israel leave the Alexandrian Empire after 2,000 years (300bc-1460ad), you bet everyone would be after them to bring them back to the empire. (unless the entire Empire is falling apart)


2.Not necessarily, The Romans can easily invade areas of Germania and as far as Scandinavia or the Baltic's if they wanted too.

Invade, yes. keep, not so likely.

7.Well let's say they just wanted to expand their religion across the world. They also gain even more resources making them capable of building more cities and an enormous empire in doing so.
 
Top