That could work, I don't know of too many religions in the 4th Century BCE that have bans on booze outside out ancient Judaism(I think)
Thermo's Next Timeline!
- Thread starter Thermopylae
- Start date
That could work, I don't know of too many religions in the 4th Century BCE that have bans on booze outside out ancient Judaism(I think)
Darkest
Banned
Hey, just take the happy medium guys. That's my school of thought. TyrannusZero says he shouldn't live passed 43 - 48. Thermopylae wants him to live to 70. Roll those numbers together... the age of 54 isn't too implausible, is it? He could still be a commanding figure then, and wouldn't give his subjects the idea of an old, weak king.
Fifty-four years should give enough time for Alexander to live another couple of wars and raise his son to his standards.
I do agree on the divisions of the empire, though... there needs to be less. After 100 years of rule, I'd imagine Egypt as a sort of neo-Greece... make them part of the same domain! Here, I'll make a map if you don't mind.
Fifty-four years should give enough time for Alexander to live another couple of wars and raise his son to his standards.
I do agree on the divisions of the empire, though... there needs to be less. After 100 years of rule, I'd imagine Egypt as a sort of neo-Greece... make them part of the same domain! Here, I'll make a map if you don't mind.
@Darkest
Yeah, 70 IS a bit old, isn't it? But I'm still not entirely sure he can get done what I want him to get done by 54. I may extend that to 60. Either way that should help pacify those calling for Big Al's death.
And yeah, I like that division of the Empire better, but I still don't think the Jews would pass up the opportunity for independence from their pagan Greek conquerors.
And as I said, the division of Egypt is temporary. One side is going to win that particular civil war, and it'll be one big nice state.
And concerning the Zeus declaring war on Pan and Bacchus: No, I won't do that. That'll just cause WAY too much backlash in the hard-drinking Macedonians. The Macedonians loved their commander, but something tells me they love their drink better. What I plan on doing is having it be Al's personal experience and personal ethos.
Keep those ideas coming! I still don't have anyone's opinion on Gaul's development, nor how politics would develop without the Roman Empire. I'm capable of brainstorming those myself, but I REALLY like to hear input from the forum before I make major decisions.
@Brandonazz
What should I have used? It was lighter than black, and I already used "Dark Gray"!
Yeah, 70 IS a bit old, isn't it? But I'm still not entirely sure he can get done what I want him to get done by 54. I may extend that to 60. Either way that should help pacify those calling for Big Al's death.
And yeah, I like that division of the Empire better, but I still don't think the Jews would pass up the opportunity for independence from their pagan Greek conquerors.
And as I said, the division of Egypt is temporary. One side is going to win that particular civil war, and it'll be one big nice state.
And concerning the Zeus declaring war on Pan and Bacchus: No, I won't do that. That'll just cause WAY too much backlash in the hard-drinking Macedonians. The Macedonians loved their commander, but something tells me they love their drink better. What I plan on doing is having it be Al's personal experience and personal ethos.
Keep those ideas coming! I still don't have anyone's opinion on Gaul's development, nor how politics would develop without the Roman Empire. I'm capable of brainstorming those myself, but I REALLY like to hear input from the forum before I make major decisions.
@Brandonazz
What should I have used? It was lighter than black, and I already used "Dark Gray"!
Keenir
Banned
The question is, how long can the Jews stay independent? (they tried in OTL with both the Romans, Alexander, and I think the Persians too)....maybe an Israel-outside-of-Israel (say, in the mountains on the border of Alexander's empire) might find a way to stay independent.
Even if Israel itself gets re-conquered, that won't snuff out Judeism...recall that they saw the Assyrian conquest of the Israeli kingdoms as the work of God.
The Gauls are a Celtic people, right?....how do they feel about the Galatians of Anatolia? (and would those be the ideal or the worst people Alexander could field against the Gauls?)
As for the Romans, I have a feeling that the idea of peaceful switching of Consuls every few years might be moot...not that it did a great deal outside the Roman Republic anyway. (did it?)
And if Rome gets stomped flat, would Carthage seek revenge against the slayers of their allies?...or would Carthage make a Treaty of Tordesias(sp) with the Alexandrians?
54 is quite all right with me. Living to 60 is a little much for someone in Alexander's shoes unless by 33 he adopts some Stoic ideals and lives a peaceful life. Can't see that happening though because Alexander wanted to rule the world. 54 is more than enough time for him to get to those borders on the map.
Dr Pervez Hoodbhoy
Banned
The Galatians are Celts who migrated to Asia Minor in the 3rd century BC, so I don't think the Gauls have any particular opinion about them at this time.
What should I have used? It was lighter than black, and I already used "Dark Gray"!
Very dark white obviously!
There are no such things as shades of black
To make something lighter you add white...
BLACK + WHITE = GRAY
^^^^
You might wanna select that word
To make something lighter you add white...
BLACK + WHITE = GRAY
^^^^
You might wanna select that word
Keenir
Banned
If there's no Roman Empire (or Republic), what happens to concrete? Are all the big buildings in the Alexandrian and post-Alexandrian world going to be in the style of Egypt and Athens -- which excludes things like the Colloseum and the Pantheon, which were both made possible by ash-filled concrete and pottery used as filler in the concrete.
Just a thought.
Just a thought.
@Keenir
Oh, I imagine it would eventually catch on, it offers so much over traditional building materials. However, that is a good point. Architecture would most certainly be different.
Oh, I imagine it would eventually catch on, it offers so much over traditional building materials. However, that is a good point. Architecture would most certainly be different.
Keenir
Banned
I agree. I just don't recall anyone else in Antiquity hitting on that idea...(or was it just that, once the Romans had it, nobody else had the opportunity to?)
either way, I'm happy to have helped out.
*BUMP*
Another important idea that I have yet to hit on: Rome's military was really quite unique by historical standards up until that point in time. It was the world's first truly professional military, for all intents and purposes (if I am wrong, do correct me).
The Roman military tradition can still be seen in the modern armies of today. Without the Roman Empire, how exactly does the military develop? In the west you have the Celtic style of warfare, the very non-professional individualistic warfare. In the east you have the Hellenistic style of warfare, pioneered by the Macedonians in which the traditional Greek phalanx is used in tandem with the mighty eastern cavalry, to help take advantage of the wide open expanses of that region.
As history progresses, how does the lack of a genuinely Roman military tradition affect other nations when they begin to field large armies?
I for one see an earlier emphasis on manueverability, something that really never came along until the mid-20th century, when you really think about it. But if I'm wrong or you have a different idea or opinion, I challenge you to post it here.
Another important idea that I have yet to hit on: Rome's military was really quite unique by historical standards up until that point in time. It was the world's first truly professional military, for all intents and purposes (if I am wrong, do correct me).
The Roman military tradition can still be seen in the modern armies of today. Without the Roman Empire, how exactly does the military develop? In the west you have the Celtic style of warfare, the very non-professional individualistic warfare. In the east you have the Hellenistic style of warfare, pioneered by the Macedonians in which the traditional Greek phalanx is used in tandem with the mighty eastern cavalry, to help take advantage of the wide open expanses of that region.
As history progresses, how does the lack of a genuinely Roman military tradition affect other nations when they begin to field large armies?
I for one see an earlier emphasis on manueverability, something that really never came along until the mid-20th century, when you really think about it. But if I'm wrong or you have a different idea or opinion, I challenge you to post it here.
Constantinople
Banned
Man I cant wait for this one. The idea of a Greek Language group is amazing and great..
Been a long time gone, haven't I?
I decided to take a spontaneous break from the forum, but now, I'M BACK! MWAHAHAHA!
Just in case any of you remember me.
Anyways, I'm wrestling a few ideas in my head for an ATL, this one included (I have a little bit fleshed-out already, but I've been having too many ideas bounce around in my head as of late to really focus on just this one). I'm making a new thread on it.
I decided to take a spontaneous break from the forum, but now, I'M BACK! MWAHAHAHA!
Just in case any of you remember me.
Anyways, I'm wrestling a few ideas in my head for an ATL, this one included (I have a little bit fleshed-out already, but I've been having too many ideas bounce around in my head as of late to really focus on just this one). I'm making a new thread on it.
Constantinople
Banned
Oohhh I cant wait for your new one. Make sure to include lots of linguistics now!