DBWI/AHC: Explain This Map

Maybe some Assyrian, Phoenician, or maybe even Carthaginian revival through an empire? Phoenicia and Carthage could theoretically project power throughout the Mediterranean and a central position in this empire would help with administration.
 
It's possible that the map might not actually be of an empire at all, but rather the spread of something like an ATL plague or Manichaeism being more successful.
 
8th Century AD?

Muslim/Arab Conquests?

Too easy for Final Jeopardy!!!!!!

:):):)

That was it. It was that one timeline from about 20 years ago in which the Muslim faith's expansion became rather more wildly successful(instead of being restricted to the Levant, as in our world); a "fantasy world", as it were-and @Roger II , I believe, hit upon one of the major divergences from our reality-the death of Khalid ibn al-Walid during the battle of Yarmouk in August, 636 was indeed handwaved.

Truly fascinating story, though even today, it does seem rather strange to me to see Muslim Hispania, in particular.....especially considering that in our reality, Hispania, together with their French allies, won many victories over the Magrebi states during the crusades of the 13th Century.

Edit: And, I've found the link to the main story. Here it is.
 
That’s the most unusual Persiawank I’ve ever seen. Most of them tend to show Persia conquering Greece, Illyria, and eventually getting to Spain from the northern Mediterranean. A very imaginative if implausible Persiawank
 
Whatever it is it must have had a very specific reason for putting so much energy into conquering areas that aren't Anatolia. Presumably it has some kind of cultural or religious kinship with whatever power occupies that space?
 
Whatever it is it must have had a very specific reason for putting so much energy into conquering areas that aren't Anatolia. Presumably it has some kind of cultural or religious kinship with whatever power occupies that space?
Maybe the timeline also has an equally strong power controlling Anatolia?
 
That was it. It was that one timeline from about 20 years ago in which the Muslim faith's expansion became rather more wildly successful(instead of being restricted to the Levant, as in our world); a "fantasy world", as it were-and @Roger II , I believe, hit upon one of the major divergences from our reality-the death of Khalid ibn al-Walid during the battle of Yarmouk in August, 636 was indeed handwaved.

Truly fascinating story, though even today, it does seem rather strange to me to see Muslim Hispania, in particular.....especially considering that in our reality, Hispania, together with their French allies, won many victories over the Magrebi states during the crusades of the 13th Century.

Edit: And, I've found the link to the main story. Here it is.

You are welcome!

Seemed kind of easy to identify, since they expanded from Arabia in all directions. Almost all of Spain, got into France, developed a large fleet later on which turned into the Barbary Pirates by the 1800's who the US fledgling navy fought. Whupped on many nations including Persia and Byzantium. The 8th Century hint sealed the deal for me!

:cool::cool::cool:
 
You are welcome!

Seemed kind of easy to identify, since they expanded from Arabia in all directions. Almost all of Spain, got into France, developed a large fleet later on which turned into the Barbary Pirates by the 1800's who the US fledgling navy fought. Whupped on many nations including Persia and Byzantium. The 8th Century hint sealed the deal for me!

:cool::cool::cool:
US? Berber pirates against the Union of Scandinavia, or is this some other US?
 
Maybe ITTL the Sassanids took advantage of Byzantine divisions, backing a pretender to the throne who gave them Egypt and the Levant in return for being allowed to rule a rump empire in Greece and Anatolia. Then the Sassanids could have pushed south and west, leaving their Byzantine puppet to guard their Mediterranean flank. That would explain why an empire so successful apparently chose not to conquer the Aegean (I say "chose not to" because there's obviously no way Greece + Anatolia on their own could stand up to such a juggernaut).
 
Maybe ITTL the Sassanids took advantage of Byzantine divisions, backing a pretender to the throne who gave them Egypt and the Levant in return for being allowed to rule a rump empire in Greece and Anatolia. Then the Sassanids could have pushed south and west, leaving their Byzantine puppet to guard their Mediterranean flank. That would explain why an empire so successful apparently chose not to conquer the Aegean (I say "chose not to" because there's obviously no way Greece + Anatolia on their own could stand up to such a juggernaut).

Even by Byzantine standards giving away half your empire as payment to your backers seems pretty excessive.
 

Toraach

Banned
Folks, It's funny to read your answers, which are just very far from the original map. It's a simlified version of the map (without, towns, names of countries, rivers, etc) from a rather obscure historical fantasy book series, by some rathern unknown american writter called GRR Martin. This book series is called A Song of Sand and Rain. It's a historical fantasy settled in the ancient worlds. that Egyptians domesticated sand drakes and used them to conquer a lot of areas. I wonder why Sahara is not included in this map, but that's a sand no mans land, so probably why. You could see that all egyptian areas are rather arid places. Their chielf and the first obstacle they meet was in Anatolia, Hettitians, but later in settling they were replaced by Greeks, who were even more fiercely against of Egyptians. Greeks were so succesful because they employed mercenary wizards from the North, who were very able with "water magic", and sand drakes didn't particulary like water, well pretty obvious. Also sometimes ice giants from Scandinavia were used.
 
Last edited:
Is this the empire at its greatest extent? My theory is that we're dealing with a Turkic/horse Nomad empire that did conquer Anatolia but were later pushed out (as ridiculous as the idea of Turks in Normandy is, bear with me, I'm not saying it was long term).

The expansion into North Africa and Spain probably came later and was short-lived. Only horse nomads could conquer that much territory in the eighth century and I don't think they'd be able to hold it together for long.
 
Top