Yeah, I was wondering because along the lines of DAv's question, having later sources present the history almost requires knowing the history of the rest of the TL in advance in order to reasonably plot out different dates, biases, and personalities. It's an issue I'm pondering as well for a potential long term project.
As Befits a King - The Brainstorm
- Thread starter Thermopylae
- Start date
Yeah, I was wondering because along the lines of DAv's question, having later sources present the history almost requires knowing the history of the rest of the TL in advance in order to reasonably plot out different dates, biases, and personalities. It's an issue I'm pondering as well for a potential long term project.
That's why I'm not going to worry about it, I don't think. Italicized bits will be excerpts, non-italicized will be narrative/omniscient.
Perhaps a recovered Alexander the Great might at some juncture, lead an army to the Indian uprising lead by Chandrgupta Maurya. After defeating him in battle, Alexander could either have him executed, or keep him in his custody, and of course, take him under his wing. Chandragupta was like Alexander in a lot of ways, and he could learn a lot from the Macedonian Emperor.
and of course I have to put in my two cents...about the Jesus guy and the effect of butterflies.
I firmly believe that any POD that prevents the Romanization of Palestine..or even the non-Seleucidite control of Palestine in the 2nd and 1st century BC..butterflies away the messianic movements and therefore eliminates the multiple messiah candidates that appear in OTL 20BC to 70AD.
NOT only that...a Greek rule that doesn't result in the urbanization of the Galilee (Tiberias and Sepphoris) results in a different economic and social structure that would have altered the situation and most probably not created the world in which the Yeshua was born in OTL.
NOT only that...the silly myth about the world-wide census would not have to be dealt with as well.
OK...i'm finished for now
I firmly believe that any POD that prevents the Romanization of Palestine..or even the non-Seleucidite control of Palestine in the 2nd and 1st century BC..butterflies away the messianic movements and therefore eliminates the multiple messiah candidates that appear in OTL 20BC to 70AD.
NOT only that...a Greek rule that doesn't result in the urbanization of the Galilee (Tiberias and Sepphoris) results in a different economic and social structure that would have altered the situation and most probably not created the world in which the Yeshua was born in OTL.
NOT only that...the silly myth about the world-wide census would not have to be dealt with as well.
OK...i'm finished for now
Interesting. So you're saying Hellenization couldn't spawn Messianic movements, but Romanization could? Just trying to be clear.
Not sure what you mean here... Could you explain??
Last edited:
This POD is a favourite of mine and I am glad you chosen to write a timeline on it. There are some things that spring to mind that I think you should consider.
A longer lasting Alexandrian empire would lead to a much quicker and easier transfer of knowledge between orient and occident. This could lead to an earlier adoption of Indian numerals, zero (or positional equivalent), algebraic precursors, infinity, and other mathematical ideas by the Europeans (assuming that the Indians did being the use of zero in the 3rd c. BC, although sources differ). Besides the mathematical and scientific benefits this would provide, it would certainly make economics more efficient without the need for cumbersome Greek numeral and would forestall the adoption of Roman numerals. Chinese inventions, such as paper, movable type, gunpowder, blast furnaces, and the compass, might make their way west far quicker than OTL. A longer lasting empire would also allow for the greater diffusion of astronomical ideas, which would no doubt greater advancement in the field. There are plenty of other ideas that could also find earlier acceptance in European thought.
Another thing that would result would be an earlier permanent Suez canal, so that there could be quicker communications and trade between the western and eastern halves of the empire. Canals on the Suez, though more transitory that the present one, have been around since far antiquity, so I can imagine that Alexander would order the construction of a more permanent conduit to strengthen the durability of his empire.
A longer lasting Alexandrian empire would lead to a much quicker and easier transfer of knowledge between orient and occident. This could lead to an earlier adoption of Indian numerals, zero (or positional equivalent), algebraic precursors, infinity, and other mathematical ideas by the Europeans (assuming that the Indians did being the use of zero in the 3rd c. BC, although sources differ). Besides the mathematical and scientific benefits this would provide, it would certainly make economics more efficient without the need for cumbersome Greek numeral and would forestall the adoption of Roman numerals. Chinese inventions, such as paper, movable type, gunpowder, blast furnaces, and the compass, might make their way west far quicker than OTL. A longer lasting empire would also allow for the greater diffusion of astronomical ideas, which would no doubt greater advancement in the field. There are plenty of other ideas that could also find earlier acceptance in European thought.
Another thing that would result would be an earlier permanent Suez canal, so that there could be quicker communications and trade between the western and eastern halves of the empire. Canals on the Suez, though more transitory that the present one, have been around since far antiquity, so I can imagine that Alexander would order the construction of a more permanent conduit to strengthen the durability of his empire.
I'm all ears.
Certainly things to consider. But one must also keep in mind that the Alexandrian Empire will not stay united all THAT long, all things considered. I think it had maybe a century in it, at best. You'll then have a Diadochi period as per OTL.
However your point still stands. A more uniform culture across such a wide area would definitely lend itself to swifter exchange of ideas.
Perhaps. It would be a fabulously expensive undertaking, however there would certainly be an incentive to do it.
Would you be dating events with the Macedonian calender as well? Or just stick with the secular one?
While a really nice idea, the Macedonian calendar would be difficult to work with (a lunar as opposed to a solar calendar). And they didn't really have a way to mark their years (BC/AD). So I think I'm going to use BC/AD, for the well-being of my readers!
Well, they might not have had something like our calender at the time. But the longer Alexander's empire, or the general culture thats spawned by it, persists, than I think some scholars in TTL might date their history either from the first year of Alexander's reign, or from the beginning of the Argead dynasty of Macedonia. Plus, one could always print dates from both OTL's and TTL's calenders together, to avoid confusion. I mean it isn't all that important compared to the subsequent events that occur in this TL, just thought that I'd mention it.
Last edited:
Hey, another question for you guys.
Was there a difference between the role of the satrap in Persian times, and the role of the satrap during the time of Alexander/Diadochi?
I'm nearly ready for show time with this TL here, just an odd kink or two to work out.
Was there a difference between the role of the satrap in Persian times, and the role of the satrap during the time of Alexander/Diadochi?
I'm nearly ready for show time with this TL here, just an odd kink or two to work out.
From what I could find, they were relatively the same; acting as viceroys, own provincial courts, etc. The only difference I could find was that the Hellenistic satrapies were smaller than Persian ones.
I could be wrong here, but while the Persian satrapies were almost always hereditary, I think that the original intention for Macedonian satraps was that they could only be appointed by the Basileus Basileion (king of kings). Of course, Alexander snuffed it, and his senior generals became kings in their own right.
Persian satrapies were far from hereditary. The Shah-an-Shah dispensed them to loyal followers. If a satrap behaved himself, his territory might be given to his heirs, but the Persian king could dispose of them as he saw fit. Indeed, determining which followers he wanted to send to command the satrapies in Asia Minor was usually how the King seems to have determined his policy vis-a-vis the Greek states from about 450 to the 370s.
Did not the Satrap of Caria, Mausolus, inherit his position from his father, or was that an exception?
An exception, along the lines of a satrap who performed well. Tissaphernes, for example, was simply appointed satrap of parts of Asia Minor by Artaxerxes.
Did the Persians of the Achaemenid Era actually possess, or had use of a navy in the Indian Ocean. I mean obviously, they had a warfleet in the Mediterrenean, but did they have any maratime rivals beyond that. I ask this because most of the Macedonian fleet that operated in the Persian Gulf was, I think, constructed in Charax.
The Achaemenids had some kind of fleet in the Persian Gulf, because they exercised suzerainty over the kingdoms of Gerrha and Mascat IOTL. But given that the worst they MIGHT have had to deal with is pirates, I don't imagine the vessels would be all that impressive, or numerous.
So after the subjugation of the Arabian coastal states, they would just become escorts for merchant convoys, and troop transports?!
Like I said, I'm sure it was a fairly small fleet, used to transport fairly small armies to subjugate the Arabian coastal states with fairly small, fairly sparse populations. It would be a niche-filling fleet.
Or they just deconstructed it, used the wood for other things. It does cost to maintain a fleet, after all.