The Pirates of Mu'lesia

This is derived from the "Empire of Mu reconsidered" ASBTL, but without any ASB. Here's the deal: Around 550 BCE a strong pirate kingdom forms between the Philippines and Indonesia, forching the chinese empire to defend its coasts. This makes vulnerable from attack by Hsiung-nu barbarians (that's Hun) which are not repelled, resulting in no germanic invasion of Europe. What happens?
 
Sorry, forgot the credit:

Originally posted by Thinker1200

Do you know what ((IMHO at least)) would be a bad ass butterfly of the rise of the Muans? They land in the Americas to find Latin Roman Imperial colonies there.

Let me explain my reasoning. You said earlier that the Tradition of the Great Raid began around 500 B.C.E right? And you said that they raided everywhere from Indonesia, to China correct? Well let us take the first Emperor of all China ((i forget what he called himself)) and the Qin Dynasty. They did three long lasting things for China IOTL, giving the land the name China, The Great Canal and the Great Wall. The Great Wall was to keep out the Huisx-nu ((Spelling?)) horsemen of Mongolia.

However, ITTL, we have even more fearsome raiders in the SOUTH of China to deal with. Therefore the First Emperor has a choice to make. Do we want to build a land wall against the scrawny, half-starved and unorganized and poor northern horsemen, or do we want to build a SEA WALL against these ((And i sorta quote your words)) burly, huge, violent, well armed AND well-organized guys that would make vikings look like long haired, drugged out, skimpy wusses that also ride dinosaur cavalry?((FUCKING AWESOME plot detail BTW:D:D:D:D:D:D)) The First Emperor picks the Sea Wall as the Great Wall.

And the Great Wall IOTL made the Huisx-nu, also known as the Huns march west for they could not breach it. Without the OTL Great Wall to oppose them they have little reason to migrate across a continent. And as we all know the main reason ((not the only one but certainly the biggest)) that the Germanic Tribes began to attack/migrate into the Roman Empire was seeking protection from the steppe tribes that were, in turn, fleeing the Huns. So no Huns=no German invasions.

Now i know what your about to say. "But Thinker, this still doesn't solve the internal problems of the WRE." This is true. However this scenario has given the Romans an extra advantage, time. As Gibbeon once said, the Romans could have puppetized the Germanic Tribes if they had had enough time and therefore gained a VERY big shield against the steppe peoples. But Europe was not an island so they did not have this time thanks to the Huns. However this scenario has given the WRE about 200-300 more years to work out their problems, and puppetize the western Germans at the very least. Once they come up with a workable solution, things are nice.

Now this will not last forever, so during the Song Dynasty, once the Muan Great Raids have tapered off for good, the Chinese turn their attention to the Mongol peoples and build the land Great Wall of OTL. This drives away the Huns/Khazars/Avars/whatever people there are. This starts the Migration period and the Germans come under attack from the steppes.
The Eastern German Tribes are of course forced to Migrate away. However the Western ones are far more powerful and stable thanks to Latin Roman help.

So the Eastern German Tribes cannot migrate that way. However, the Greek Roman Empire of Constantinople has recently been dealt the double punch of the Sassanian Wars of the late 500s and early 600s, but the rise of Islam in the 600s and 700s. Therefore the East Germans hit the ERE and sack the piss outta Constantinople, forging their kingdoms in its corpse.

Now as for the long term survival of the WRE, i think it will do far better than the Byzantines of OTL did. i say this for three reasons.
1. The position of the WRE vs Byzantine Empire. The Byzantines were constantly under attack from all directions. From first Persians, then Turks in the east, Arabs in the south, Latins from the west, and first steppe peoples, then Russians from the north. With all of these attacks from all directions, it was bound to make a critical mistake sooner or later and be destroyed. The 4th Crusade pretty much WAS that mistake and even then it took another 2 centuries before it all collapsed. The WRE however can only feasibly be attacked from one direction, Eastern Europe/Germany, and another if you want to waste a HUGE amount of cash getting an army there, North Africa. So it is far safer.
2. The viable wealth of the WRE vs Constantinople. A BIG reason that the Byzantines lasted for so long IOTL was due to the fact that the trade routes of NEARLY half of the world ran through Constantinople. In fact many still do even today, like the oil pipelines of the Caspian and Black Seas. You get it this city shits money. So ITTL, the barbarians and others look at both targets. An Empire that is well defended and only produces a third of the other options money? Or a city that sits atop enough trade lanes and routes to literally shit cash, that is poorly defended due to numerous wars? Id go with the second option if i were any kind of sane warlord/general.
3. Cultural Unity of WRE vs Byzantium. Now this one's a bit iffy so plz bear with me here. When the Roman Empire took over Gaul, Iberia and Britain, they conquered a bunch of tribal states. Now these were no real caveman barbarians. However, they only had the very basics of a culture: common language, coinage and lifestyle in place. The Romans were the first to really give these peoples a higher cultural and social structure beyond tribalism. When Rome conquered the East however, they conquered groups of people with well established cultural, social, religious, political, historical and scientific values set in place. The only reason that these peoples followed the Romans was due to the fact that the Romans were the strongest people at the time. When the Arabian Muslims rose in the 600s and 700s, history shows how quickly areas such as Egypt, Syria and the Levant were to abandon the Greek Romans for their own brethren. Also history tell us that many in the Byzantine Empire were so divided over religious doctrine that they were willing to let the Muslims keep the peace between them, rather than let one group rule over another. There is even the infamous story of how the Turks in 1453 broke into the Imperial Palace while the Greek Emperor and a few of his aides were have a theological argument. So the Western Latin Romans have cultural stability on their side while the Eastern Greek Romans are ruling over a vast number of peoples that have little in common beyond Greek Roman rule. Whom do you think will last longer?

Now on with my little display of pure insanity. The actual size of the WRE isn't going to be as large as the Western provinces of the United Roman Empire. The Saxons, Jutes and Angles of OTL didn't migrate due to the Hunnic invasions so much due to climactic changes in Scandinavia. Thus the Roman province of Britannia, one of the most rebellious in the whole of the Empire and rather poor, which would have probably been abandoned by the Romans during their resolving of internal issues, and gone Saxon as per OTL. North Africa would have probably gone Muslim, due to the fact that the Berbers had most in common with the Arabs than they did with the Romans, but this is iffy so bear with me here. Spain would have been much more defended than IOTL. So i see the Latin Romans keeping Italy, Gaul, Iberia and western Dalmatia ((to prevent pirate attacks of course.))

So we get a Middle Ages, with the Latin Roman Empire being the dominant power in Western Europe.
EFFECTS INCLUDE: Germany coalesces under Roman influence.
Different Crusades, with organized armies attacking the Holy Land rather than a hodgepodge of knights and their armies.
Latin doesn't die out as a language.
No Dark Ages, or at the least much, much shorter Dark Ages.
Vikings dont do as well in Western Europe and instead migrate to either Proto-Russia or Vinland/Iceland/Greenland and maybe we see a lasting viking state in North America.:D
Different development of of western armies, with the focus on heavy infantry, rather than heavy cavalry, leading to the bards singing of heroic Centurions rather than Knights.
A lessening of the Black Death due to Roman sanitation systems still working. Also means no Protestant Reformation, or at least a lesser one based on ethnic differences rather than a Catholic Church corrupted by the Black Death.
Maybe no Great Schism, but that is kinda iffy to me.
The SPQA ((Sentatus Populesques Americanus)) instead of the USA.
Perhaps the Aztec and Inca Empires survive.
Muan California, and SPQA New York fighting each other.
The World War(s) will be interesting to say the least.

I think you can take it from there.
Comments? Flames?

Original tread Empire of Mu, Reconsidered by DValdron
 
Here's the deal: Around 550 BCE a strong pirate kingdom forms between the Philippines and Indonesia...


LHC,

The area between the Philippines and Indonesia contains Borneo, the Celebes, and other islands. Are you aware of just how far they are from even the southern coast of China? It's nearly 1,000km from Manila to Hong Kong alone and over 2,500km from Palu in the Celebes to Hong Kong.

... forching the chinese empire to defend its coasts.

550 BCE right? That's the Zhou dynasty IIRC and the China they controlled does not have the same borders of the China you see today.

The only coastline the Zhou controlled was along and north of the Shandong peninsular which is even further away from the Borneo/Celebes region than the southern China coast I mentioned above, something like 4,000km distant.

What happens?

Nothing, because the basic premise is fatally flawed. Among other things it ignores basic geography along with failing to understand where the borders and coastline of the Zhou Empire actually were.


Bill
 
Top