Imperial Overstretch: How Long?

How long do y'all think it will take for the following AH empires, under realistic conditions, to collapse from overextension? What would result?

1) The Domination of the Draka
2) A Victorious 3rd Reich
3) The Soviet Union w/ "limited" containment policy (as advocated by Kennan)
4) The Soviet Union with no containment policy at all
5) A Roman Empire with frontiers on the Oder
6) Persian Empire with all non-Anatolian Byzantine territory
7) Islamic Caliphate w/ victory @ Tours
8) Islamic Caliphate w/ victory @ Constantinople
9) Mongol Empire if that Khan didn't die (thus sparing Europe)
10) Spanish Empire after victorious Armada landing
11) British Empire crushes American Revolution
 
Matt Quinn said:
How long do y'all think it will take for the following AH empires, under realistic conditions, to collapse from overextension? What would result?

5) A Roman Empire with frontiers on the Oder
It wouldn't. By eliminating quite a few of the barbarians that would later invade it, plus increasing its manpower while decreasing the active frontier (coastline notwithstanding), Rome would be able to weather the Goths, Huns, Vandals and whoever else was left (the Franks, Saxons, and Angles would have been conquered).
 
Perhaps I should have put, "A Roman Empire that doesn't lose those legions under Varus and continues eastward expansion in Europe." Eventually, I think they might bite off more than they can chew.

The Oder River frontier is actually a good way to avoid death-by-overstretch.
 
Matt Quinn said:
Perhaps I should have put, "A Roman Empire that doesn't lose those legions under Varus and continues eastward expansion in Europe." Eventually, I think they might bite off more than they can chew.

The Oder River frontier is actually a good way to avoid death-by-overstretch.
Well, it depends on how far eastward they expand. There are plenty of points were expansion would provide the Empire with a short secure frontier. Plus, the further they expand, the more potential invaders get conquered. Also, does collapse include division of the Empire?

Regardless, my guess is around the 3rd-4th centuries. The empire wouldn't fall to the barbarians, but to seperatist states, like the Gallic Empire of OTL. Wow. My Roman Timeline really works pretty well.
 
Tieing the Empire together

I have thoughts on a few of these.
Roman Empire--without a military defeat of some sort, it could last a long time, although the lead poisoning works against this. Without the telegraph, perhaps a continent-spanning semaphore system could tie things together. All that needs is for someone to get the idea, and someone else to build it--and the Romans were GOOD at massive projects. I'd expect it to collapse eventually--an empire that big has many opportunities for collapse or revolt. The central government has to win every time against these--bad luck, coups, disease, or revolution only has to succeede once to kill the empire.
The British Empire is a big question. With or without a successful American revolution, I wouldn't be surprised to see the British Empire alive and well in many timelines where the Great War ended in a negotiated peace without exhausting the Empire economicly. Once again, catastrophe has to be averted repeatedly over the life of an empire--fail once, and the empire can end.
 
Matt Quinn said:
How long do y'all think it will take for the following AH empires, under realistic conditions, to collapse from overextension? What would result?

1) The Domination of the Draka
2) A Victorious 3rd Reich
3) The Soviet Union w/ "limited" containment policy (as advocated by Kennan)
4) The Soviet Union with no containment policy at all
5) A Roman Empire with frontiers on the Oder
6) Persian Empire with all non-Anatolian Byzantine territory
7) Islamic Caliphate w/ victory @ Tours
8) Islamic Caliphate w/ victory @ Constantinople
9) Mongol Empire if that Khan didn't die (thus sparing Europe)
10) Spanish Empire after victorious Armada landing
11) British Empire crushes American Revolution

1. A realistic Domination would either just be a bigger South Africa, or would never industrialize, so eventually being dominated and colonized by more advanced nations, or, in Ian's scenario, would bite off than it could chew, and be totally defeated ala Nazi Germany. By the time the Domination is strong enough to win, you're in a parallel reality where different laws apply.

2. Victorious Nazis might last different lengths of time, depending on how pragmatic Hitler's successors are, on how much opposition they face beyond their borders, and on how big their empire is. A Nazi Germany that conquered all of Europe out to the Urals, and had the United States as an enemy would probably be very overstretched, indeed, and at best could make it to the late '90s or around now before imploding, probably with nuclear death throes. With poor leadership after Hitler, it wouldn't even make it that long, figure maybe mid-'70s. If America is more neutral or isolationist than hostile, figure it could hang on longer, but will still self-destruct by the second decade of the 21st century at the latest. A Nazi Germany that does not invade Russia (say Hitler drops dead in late 1940, frex) has a much longer lifespan, perhaps even measurable in centuries, if the leadership is pragmatic enough, not that I think pragmatic Nazis are all that likely.

3. Limited containment will mean less competition for the Soviets, but they have still taken staggering losses in WWII, the economic system still doesn't work, and Stalin has still discredited Communism to most everyone who lives under it. The areas that the Communist Bloc would be likely to absorb with limited containment are not especially productive or useful, and would cost resources to prop up, so I think you're looking at a lifespan of about the same length, or, at best a decade or two longer. What _is_ possible is that such a situation may give the Soviet Union the opportunity to reform itself without collapsing, so you end up with the collapse of Communism, but a USSR that holds rather shakily together.

4. Hmmm, essentially a Bob Taft US. Well, I'm guessing the Soviets would be able to either absorb or trade with some much more productive regions, then. It might last several decades longer, and fall harder, but I doubt it will ever make it to its second century, and probably not even get close. After all, a command economy _still_ doesn't work.

5. The Romans will definitely last longer with fewer and weaker barbarian invaders. No empire lasts forever, though, and the problems of economic decline, succession, and probably civil war all still exist. So, too, do all those plagues that so lowered the population in OTL. I would guess that without barbarians, the Fall of Rome takes a totally different character - by 650 or so, the Eastern and Western Empires are different in language, customs, types of Christianity, and they are probably starting to fight. From there, it's only a matter of time before other regions break off, with Britain, Germania, North Africa, and Egypt all being possible micro-Empires of their own. OTOH, the mystique of the universal Roman empire means that it is just as likely that somebody eventually reuintes the Empire someday, giving us the same kinds of cycles you see in Chinese history.

6. The Persians fell apart for reasons having little to do with imperial overstretch, and they will still be operative no matter how big the Persian Empire gets. A bigger Persia may be able to resist the the Moslems, assuming they are not butterflied away, but civil wars among the leading noble families will still crash the Persian Empire before about 700. OTOH, it might, like the Roman, get revived, perhaps under a Zoroastrian, Turkic dynasty.

7. Again the disintigration of the Islamic Empire had little to do with overstretch, and everything to do with sucession problems, chronic political instability, and long communication gaps from one end of the Caliphate to the other, which is related to overstretch, but not the same thing. My guess is that it falls apart on the dot, but a bigger chunk of Europe gets absorbed into the Ummayad mini-Caliphate centered on Cordoba. Even this doesn't last, however, because that state was also chronically unstable and prone to civil wars between Arabs and Berbers. So, my guess is that the Moslems are eventually driven out of France and probably northern Spain, finishing the Caliphate as an empire, even if southern Spain stays Islamic.

8. The loss of Constantinople means that Islam gets further in the Balkans, probably a lot further. It might well induce the Russians to convert to Islam instead of Orthodoxy, though might also just stay Slavic Pagan instead. Either way, this doesn't lengthen the life of the Caliphate by so much as a day. It does mean a lot more small Islamic Emirates, Sultanates, Khanates, and so on, some of them damn strange ones by OTL standards. This will send the history of Islam in all kinds of cool, but unpredictable directions.

9. Again, the problems of the Mongols were not that a matter of overstretch in the normal sense, but rather of administration and dynastic instability. So, the Kha-Khanate will still break up into successor Khanates on time. Likewise, the Mongols will retreat from Western Europe and the Germanies pretty quickly. They always did hate forests. You might, however, get some pretty long lasting successor states in parts of Eastern Europe. Most of the ones in Russia and the Middle East fell apart by about the 1400s in OTL, so I'm guessing this happens in most Mongol-victory ATLs, as well. OTOH, a non-Mongol, but Mongol-influenced autocracy like Muscovy could easily appear in Central Europe, and last for a very, very long while.

10. My guess is that a victorious Armada does not lead to a glorious revolt ala Turtledove, though his book is a lovely one. Nor does it lead to a lasting Spanish Empire. Like as not, overstretch still ruins Spain, and the Stewarts profit from it, eventually "liberating" England from Spanish rule. My guess is this happens by about 1610 at the latest. If the defeat of England leads to a Guise victory in France, and victory in the Netherlands (though I have my doubts), Spain might stay somewhat dominant in Europe down to the early 18th century, but only because its friends don't challenge it. Even the Guises, however, will eventually figure out that Spain is a lot weaker, and will eventually take advantage of that fact, bringing about the fall of the Spanish Empire. Anglophone settlement in the Americas, however, might easily be butterflied away, leading, depending on your preference in ATLs, to various Francophone Americas, or to America as a Third World backwater, possibly with a strong and prosperous Mexico. Or not, depending on how the butterflies flap.

11. Despite my affection for Irish culture, I don't really think the British would behave all that badly if they won the Revolutionary War. British behavior in Ireland stemmed from the early date of the conflict, its long duration with resultant bitterness on both sides, and the fact that the Irish spoke a different tongue, had different laws and customs, and, after the Reformation, followed a religion viewed, mostly accurately, as hostile to the Church of England. None of that is remotely the case in America. I would guess that a failed American Revolution would be followed by the quick establishment of local Loyalist governments, which would be oppressive for awhile, but would fairly quickly settle down to use their authority pretty responsibly. I think Sobel is pretty optimistic to have the CNA form by 1780, though it is possible. More likely is that the Younger Pitt allows, or even encourages, the formation of such a thing in the late 1790s or first decade of the 19th century. This means that British North America turns into a pretty nice place by the early 19th century, comparable to Canada in some ways, and to the United States in others. No doubt about it, the British Empire as such would be a lot bigger, and, with the wealth and industrial might of America to support it, would be very, very powerful, indeed. My guess is that it would not "fall" at all, but just slowly evolve into a federation of self-governing Dominions. Depending on what happened in the rest of the world, such a federation - backed by a host of traditions (some of them even authentic!), the mutual self-interest of its members, and the industrial power of North America - might last very, very long, indeed. Think centuries. Many centuries.
 
Mikey said:
What is the absolute earliest date that the telegram could be invented?

Do you mean electric telegraph as we know it or any form of long-distance signalling?

The latter requires just a) the ability to station coordinated groups of people in fixed places and b) the concept of non-vocal sign systems. I'd say around 3500 BC would be possible, though realistically the need for such a system would not develop until significantly later, and even then it took long for the technique to be figured out in detail.

The former is harder. You need a lot of different materials - iron, copper, zinc, non-conductive insulators, acid etc. Realistically, you would also need what I call a tinkering culture, the idea that it pays to play around with stuff (Hellenistic Greece or imperial China would be possible early candidates). Of course it is still quite unlikely that anyone comes up with the idea from what little was known of electricity atthe time, but stranger things have happened (it is, frex, quite likely that in Parthian Iraq, galvanic gilding was figured out by that proverbial someone)

Telegraphic lines along Rome's limites or the Great Canal and rivers of Tang or Song China are far-fetched, but not ASB.
 
Matt Quinn said:
How long do y'all think it will take for the following AH empires, under realistic conditions, to collapse from overextension? What would result?

2) A Victorious 3rd Reich

Not long at all, though its end would probably not come from imperial overstretch. Unless they can figure out a way to make their government work, any victorious Third Reich would not survive a peace for longer than a few decades, if that. Even before the war, there were numerous plots to topple Hitler from within the system. Through the twelve years of its existence, there were 46 recorded (credible) assassination attempts on the Fuehrer, several of his highest-ranking generals were involved, others leaked military secrets to the enemy or sabotaged the war effort. THe whole thing was a bloody shambles, and I doubt it could have stood the strain of functioning adequately without an excuse.


Matt Quinn said:
5) A Roman Empire with frontiers on the Oder

I agree it would not have fallen to imperial overstretch. It would eventually disintegrate, as did the Roman Empire OTL. The problem is that the whole process is kind of difficult to pinpoint in terms of when the Roman Empire 'stops existing'. Is the Tetrarchy still a 'Roman Empire'? Is Justinian's empire? Heraclius'? What about Charlemagne? Technically, the Roman Empire in the East continued until 1453, in the West till 1806, yet I'm sure nobody would defend the idea that Rome fell to Napoleon. I'd expect a similar 'long, slow decline' scenario that ends with states claiming the legacy of the Empire for themselves, reinterpreting it, and carrying ti into further centuries.

Matt Quinn said:
6) Persian Empire with all non-Anatolian Byzantine territory

I don't think it could have held onto Greece and the Balkans, let alone Italy and the Isles, for too long. North Africa and especially Syria and Egypt, on the other hand, could have become the core territory of a greater Persian empire to last pretty much indefinitely. Look at the Ottomans.

Matt Quinn said:
7) Islamic Caliphate w/ victory @ Tours

Unless Tours is aggressively expanded upon I'd expect that to go as it went OTL. The Frankish frontier is an insignificant sideshow to the grand opera that is the Fall of the Umayyads, and anything that happens here will be predicated by events in Syria and Persia. Of course even a small change at this juncture could nix the Carolingians, which would have really interesting effects down the line for Europe...

Matt Quinn said:
9) Mongol Empire if that Khan didn't die (thus sparing Europe)

Probably much the same as in OTL, just that Europe is affected directly this time. I don't think holding the MOngol Empire together as a whole was impossible from the start, given the way it was governed. However, a European successor state could last for a while. A Christian Khan would help - the big issue in Russia quickly became that the Golden Horde were majority-Muslim.
 
"I don't think it could have held onto Greece and the Balkans, let alone Italy and the Isles, for too long"

Oops...another brain-dead moment from me. I was thinking more along the lines of Syria, Palestine, and Egypt (which they successfully occupied for a short time before the Byzantines invaded Persia itself). Italy, Greece, and the island territories totally slipped my mind. Sorry. I wonder how the Persians would be able to get into Europe without being able to invade Asia Minor...ships from Egypt?

"The Persians fell apart for reasons having little to do with imperial overstretch, and they will still be operative no matter how big the Persian Empire gets. A bigger Persia may be able to resist the the Moslems, assuming they are not butterflied away, but civil wars among the leading noble families will still crash the Persian Empire before about 700"

I thought the Persians fell due to the endless wars with the Byzantines, which could count as "overstretch" to a degree. Of course, if there are constant coups back home, administration would get chaotic and be unable to govern--the bigger an empire with a chaotic administration, the more difficult things get.
 
Matt Quinn said:
"I don't think it could have held onto Greece and the Balkans, let alone Italy and the Isles, for too long"

Oops...another brain-dead moment from me. I was thinking more along the lines of Syria, Palestine, and Egypt (which they successfully occupied for a short time before the Byzantines invaded Persia itself). Italy, Greece, and the island territories totally slipped my mind. Sorry. I wonder how the Persians would be able to get into Europe without being able to invade Asia Minor...ships from Egypt?

(shrugs) If the Arabs could do it after taking Alexandria, why not the Persians? Water is just a good way of getting someplace if you have ships. I just don't think the structure of an ancient empire lends itself to scattered possessions.

"The Persians fell apart for reasons having little to do with imperial overstretch, and they will still be operative no matter how big the Persian Empire gets. A bigger Persia may be able to resist the the Moslems, assuming they are not butterflied away, but civil wars among the leading noble families will still crash the Persian Empire before about 700"

I thought the Persians fell due to the endless wars with the Byzantines, which could count as "overstretch" to a degree. Of course, if there are constant coups back home, administration would get chaotic and be unable to govern--the bigger an empire with a chaotic administration, the more difficult things get.

The real problem I see will be getting the Persians (and their new Byzantine subjects) to drop their nasty habits of religious persecution for long enough to find an accomodation of some sort. The heartlands of the Sassanid Persian Empire were Zoroastrian, and their priesthood apparently every bit as eager to keep other believers (like Christians, Jews, Manichees, and pagans) out of the power structure. If they don'tr drop that habit quick, they'll have a very hard time running formerly Byzantine territory. Zoroastrianism is much less attractive to Monophysite Christians than is Islam, and the early Muslim states were quite happy with Christians and Jews in senior nonmilitary positions. If the Persians heed that particular tradition of their forefathers (the Achaemenids never required anyone to worship at their temples), I'm suire they would not need to worry overly at the wars with Byzantium. After all, they now have Byzantium's breadbasket (Egypt) and cash cow (Syria). If anything, I'd begin worrying about Anatolia at this point. The Byzantines need it, the Persians dont, and thus the King of Kings of Iran and Not-Iran can afford to offer the Armenians and Kurds whatever they can bite off...
 
Don't worry Matt, we forgive you your error. After all, we are generous and large of heart, not to mention most of us have blundered that way ourselves. Except me, of course... :p (bring on the sentient kudzu!)

Aedh! My friend! One who remembers what was happening in France during the time of the Spanish Armadillo( :D )! Actually, the successful Armada might well become a disaster for Spain. Basically they now have TWO major land wars bleeding them, every warship and merchantman in England just joined the Dutch, and maintaining both positions will take an even greater effort(Look Hans! MORE fat merchantmen to kill!) What's that? Spain could pull more warships away from the silver fleet for the English Channel. (Oh no! Hans, do not let the Spanish throw us in THAT briar patch!)

Meanwhile France continues to bleed, and if the Duke of Guise does make it to the throne, big trouble. Even if Henry of Navarre is willing to convert now, there is already a Catholic king on the throne. On the other hand, Henry of Navarre was a far superior military leader. I suppose we could imagine a situation where he makes it to the throne, but this would involve the slaughter not only of a reigning king(crowned by the Church!) but of his children AND any other inconvenient family members, with the Catholic Church then ACCEPTING THE KILLER! More likely Navarre carves out his own kingdom(Navarre? Aquitaine?) from southwest France covering about 35% of the kingdom. Perhaps later, during the revolts and plots of the 17th Century, his descendants also seize much of the former Kingdom of Aragon. This would leave Spain/Castile unhappy and much weaker. No doubt in the 20th century some legal scholars would declare that Henry of Navarre was the rightful heir and the usurption of the House of Guise is what broke France into a minor set of powers.

OOH!!! No Revocation of the Edict of Nantes! Prussia just got hurt big time...
 
I don't believe in imperial overstretch, myself; I think the nations collapse because of problems within.
 
More Empire suggestions ?

What about also for the following ?
-Byzantine empire post-1453
-Crusader Holy Land with more military successes against Saracens 1187-1291 timeframe
-Imperial Japan which wins all major battles of WWII
 
Melvin Loh said:
What about also for the following ?
-Byzantine empire post-1453

Assuming the Ottoman Turks never recover from Tamerlane and instead Anatolia is broken up into a plethora of competing statelets, the 'Roman Empire' could very likely have continued on for a few centuries as a client state of some regional strongman (Hungary? Venice? Serbia? some Turkish successor state?). However, that's not really what I'd consider a nation suffering from Imperial Overstrewtch. ("Majesty, the Great Logothete has voiced concern over the administrative control of Marmara. It is almost ten miles from the palace")

-Crusader Holy Land with more military successes against Saracens 1187-1291 timeframe

That sounds interesting. A longer-lasting, more successful Outremer... Perversely, I think their chances would be greater without Jerusalem. While they hold Jerusalem, every religious nutcase in the Muslim world has a convenient excuse to hate their government for not doing something about it, and every Muslim prince a convenient way of showing off his devotion to the Faith. With Jerusalem in, say, Ayyubid hands, the Christian nutcases will be available ("army-on-tap") and Muslim rulers interested in peace can always ask the 64-dinar question "You want to die a martyr for Accra?"
 
How long do y'all think it will take for the following AH empires, under realistic conditions, to collapse from overextension? What would result?

1) The Domination of the Draka
2) A Victorious 3rd Reich
3) The Soviet Union w/ "limited" containment policy (as advocated by Kennan)
4) The Soviet Union with no containment policy at all
5) A Roman Empire with frontiers on the Oder
6) Persian Empire with all non-Anatolian Byzantine territory
7) Islamic Caliphate w/ victory @ Tours
8) Islamic Caliphate w/ victory @ Constantinople
9) Mongol Empire if that Khan didn't die (thus sparing Europe)
10) Spanish Empire after victorious Armada landing
11) British Empire crushes American Revolution


1) All of 100 years, even counting the Homo servus bit. Sooner or later one bright Draka is going to decide he knows better than the Archon, and everything goes to Hell.

2) About the moment life leaves Adolf Hitler's body.

3) About the same time, or less that the OTL one did. Less containment won't fix the structural rot in the Soviet system, or avert the rise of Brehznev (may even strengthen his group).

4) Give it another 100 years, with a US-style wank where everything that can go right goes right and nothing that could go wrong goes wrong. In a more realistic scenario, maybe 40 years.

5) This is a pre-Industrial civilization, the rules are slightly different. You'd likely see a collapse, a rebuilding, a collapse, a rebuilding forever and a day like has happened in China.

6) Interesting question, no Persian Empire has ever up and died because of conditions inherent to it, instead they've up and died by conquest by pathetically small armies. I'd wager around 100 years before it all comes crashing down.

7) A victory at Tours would not have meant much, the Abbasids weren't going to conquer Europe at the time. A victory might mean a little more pushing into Europe, but not the rise of Euroislam. About the same time as the OTL one.

8) Which battle of Constantinople? The one in the 8th Century or the other Muslim attacks on it prior to 1453?

9) The Mongols would not have ruled Europe, merely turned the place into a smoldering wasteland for a little bit, so I'd wager roughly the time of the OTL one.

10) Around the time that inflation hits the Spanish Empire and those New World mines start to give out. And victory with the Armada does not necessarily mean troops in Britain.

11) My guess is that the British Empire would have been more limited in scope, the conquest of North America and India would have been more or less likely, or as likely as OTL at any rate, but I'm not sure if the African territories would have been added, as the US was rich enough independent, under British rule, the North American subcontinent (especially with those germs to "assist" in clearing out the natives before hegemony is forced) and the Indian subcontinent would have been all that was needed to sustain the British empire. Sooner or later the idea of Dominions will come along, and after that, it's a short ride to independence. My guess is possibly 50 more years than OTL, albeit with less far-flung territories ruled, which will have enormous butterflies.
 
Top