What is a common thing or trope that always seem to happen?

[Xel]

Honestly the industrialization doesn't bother me, nor does staying pagan, I love Pagan timelines; but one thing I feel people tend to forget when writing Rome survives timelines it that societally speaking there tended to be a lot of ya know, civil wars, schisms, chaos, ETC.

Sure there were grace periods, most cultures got them, but when Rome warred on itself it did so a lot and hard; I basically feel some folks treat a surviving Rome almost like its empire on easy mode, but I feel little could be further from the truth.

Also a general "Progress is linear" thing which always rankles me, cos it very much isn't, especially when first discovering a technology or method, its developed based on available resources, culture and need.

That is to say an industrialized Rome would probably look quite different to say, Industrialized Britain even if its aesthetics has also changed or developed into something else along the way.

 

[Lalli]

Honestly the industrialization doesn't bother me, nor does staying pagan, I love Pagan timelines; but one thing I feel people tend to forget when writing Rome survives timelines it that societally speaking there tended to be a lot of ya know, civil wars, schisms, chaos, ETC.

Sure there were grace periods, most cultures got them, but when Rome warred on itself it did so a lot and hard; I basically feel some folks treat a surviving Rome almost like its empire on easy mode, but I feel little could be further from the truth.

Also a general "Progress is linear" thing which always rankles me, cos it very much isn't, especially when first discovering a technology or method, its developed based on available resources, culture and need.

That is to say an industrialized Rome would probably look quite different to say, Industrialized Britain even if its aesthetics has also changed or developed into something else along the way.

And another common and really ridicolous idea is that bigger nation is better. Often people just think that Rome (or sometimes another nation) could had survived if it owuld had conquered more land, at least Germania and ratherly to Urals and Indus Valley happily forgotting such things like logistics (how ITF you think transporting supplies and soldiers thousands of miles and secure thousands kilometers borders?) or deal with tons of rebellions around the empire. And there would be other nations which would oppose such expansions.

Bigger is not really better. Often it might be even disadvantage. Expansion means more worry about borders, rivaling nations, logistical issues and securing stability of an empire. It too means more costs since you have build more roads, more cities and get more soldiers so they can guard borders and protect settlers. You need too lot of resources integrating native population to yours empire. Probably empire should too be able make reforms on its govern,ent system. For example Roman government system was meant to rule city state not empire which expands from Iberia to Middle East and from Britain to Sahara. For such empire city state system is just hellish unviable.

 

[Xel]

And another common and really ridicolous idea is that bigger nation is better. Often people just think that Rome (or sometimes another nation) could had survived if it owuld had conquered more land, at least Germania and ratherly to Urals and Indus Valley happily forgotting such things like logistics (how ITF you think transporting supplies and soldiers thousands of miles and secure thousands kilometers borders?) or deal with tons of rebellions around the empire. And there would be other nations which would oppose such expansions.

Bigger is not really better. Often it might be even disadvantage. Expansion means more worry about borders, rivaling nations, logistical issues and securing stability of an empire. It too means more costs since you have build more roads, more cities and get more soldiers so they can guard borders and protect settlers. You need too lot of resources integrating native population to yours empire. Probably empire should too be able make reforms on its govern,ent system. For example Roman government system was meant to rule city state not empire which expands from Iberia to Middle East and from Britain to Sahara. For such empire city state system is just hellish unviable.

Oooh yeah that's definitely one I have fallen into myself at times though I have thankfully un-learned that habit of trying to make the map as 'complete' as possible But yeah, especially under the Roman systems given how they deployed Legions but even in general. Sue you have more resources and people. but you also have more and more border, more and more people to organize, control, feed and defend, more reason to be attacked and so on. That's not even getting into matters of communication and responses, or ambitious sub-leaders who might decide to take a piece of the pie for themselves or just straight up try and take over and being able to fester easily cos of how much there simply is to manage.

 

[Aluma]

Honestly the industrialization doesn't bother me, nor does staying pagan, I love Pagan timelines;

I dont either, I just wish people were open about going with Pagan Rome for the cool factor

but one thing I feel people tend to forget when writing Rome survives timelines it that societally speaking there tended to be a lot of ya know, civil wars, schisms, chaos, ETC.

Indeed
If Rome isnt a chaotic mess is it Rome at all? And if for whatever reason the Alt-Rome doesnt suffer from these issues then the author could at least tell us why, like how did it evolve sociopolitically to the point where the Empire isnt latching at it' own throat 24/7

 

[Maxell]

I dont either, I just wish people were open about going with Pagan Rome for the cool factor

Well thing with paganism being preferred is the fact that having a real world religion which still has a large following being portrayed in your fictional work actually opens a huge can of worms that not only could cause a huge amount of controversy but also run the risk of jeopardizing the internal universe logic. It would be very hard to shoehorn Zeus into the same universe as Jesus Christ without doing all sorts of crazy explanations that can get hard to understand. Hence, authors usually prefer sticking with paganism to prevent that mess.

 

[boredviewer1234]

This is going to sound odd, but Mongolia is always independent trope.

It's weird in hindsight, Mongolia was under the control of the Qing for centuries quite easily till a combination of getting rid of laws preventing Han from settling the region, poverty and weakness led to largely bloodless revolt combined with the collapse of the Qing and some Russian help meant Mongolia got it's freedom and become a theocratic Buddhist state.

Obviously this state of affairs is easily altered, a more unified China, a less interested Russia it likely does not become independent.

Though the thing is it does not matter how much a revisionist or powerful China is, the weakness of Russia or the very clear benefits of taking it some resources yes but also settling a unstable border and also making sure no one else can use it it will will almost always remain free.

I suppose Mongolia is simply overlooked on the world scale I guess.

 

[ordinarylittleme]

it will will almost always remain free

Is that good or bad?

 

[Beatriz]

There aren't any entities that declare their nation's capital as the Eschatopolis - the city from which all humanity is or will be administered. In the Bible, Jerusalem will be the seat of the Lord metaphorically, and the Nazis named their capital Welthauptstadt Germania. According to some individuals, Washington DC or NYC fulfills this in part.
Realistically, what city is best positioned to administer the Earth?

 

[Mitridates the Great]

There aren't any entities that declare their nation's capital as the Eschatopolis - the city from which all humanity is or will be administered. In the Bible, Jerusalem will be the seat of the Lord metaphorically, and the Nazis named their capital Welthauptstadt Germania. According to some individuals, Washington DC or NYC fulfills this in part.
Realistically, what city is best positioned to administer the Earth?

Well Eschatopolis is a VERY ugly name. And also doesn't make sense except in the case of the Government is VERY religious (religious in the sense of Lind's Retroculture, Handmaid Tale's Gilead, or that kind of "religiosity").

 

[Beatriz]

Well Eschatopolis is a VERY ugly name. And also doesn't make sense except in the case of the Government is VERY religious (religious in the sense of Lind's Retroculture, Handmaid Tale's Gilead, or that kind of "religiosity").

Not as a literal name, as a concept - and a one that nominally secular governments have used

 

[Mitridates the Great]

Not as a literal name, as a concept - and a one that nominally secular governments have used

I think that in any case they would use a name that sounded more familiar to future administrators and people. Even if the concept of a world capital is well known, the name of Eschatopolis does not seem very popular. Using names like "The New Rome" seems more common.

 

[Beatriz]

I think that in any case they would use a name that sounded more familiar to future administrators and people. Even if the concept of a world capital is well known, the name of Eschatopolis does not seem very popular. Using names like "The New Rome" seems more common.

The actual name for the concept that I was referencing was https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caput_Mundi

 

[durante]

There aren't any entities that declare their nation's capital as the Eschatopolis - the city from which all humanity is or will be administered. In the Bible, Jerusalem will be the seat of the Lord metaphorically, and the Nazis named their capital Welthauptstadt Germania. According to some individuals, Washington DC or NYC fulfills this in part.
Realistically, what city is best positioned to administer the Earth?

I believe that when the UN was being created, there was some controversy over where the HQ should be. Of course in the end it was New York, but it's not hard to see how this could be considered problematic.

One solution was the use of an island in the Niagara River, in between Canada and the USA. The two countries have a long friendly history, and the island would be called "Peace Island" or something like that, and the entire thing could be turned over to the UN for administration. Always thought that was an interesting concept.

 

[Codae]

There aren't any entities that declare their nation's capital as the Eschatopolis - the city from which all humanity is or will be administered. In the Bible, Jerusalem will be the seat of the Lord metaphorically, and the Nazis named their capital Welthauptstadt Germania. According to some individuals, Washington DC or NYC fulfills this in part.
Realistically, what city is best positioned to administer the Earth?

Assuming a modern level of telecommunications, I'd say what you're looking for is a location where the working day overlaps with the working day for as much of the world population as possible. It's wasteful to accommodate the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans, but you can get within 6 hours of the time zones of both Japan (the Old World's easternmost nation over 50 million people) and the UK (the Old World's westernmost nation over 50 million people) by sticking your capital in the Indian subcontinent. It shouldn't matter too much exactly where your capital is, as long as there's enough space and water for a major city, but Delhi's been selected as an imperial capital repeatedly over the last millennium, so it must have something going for it.

 

[Aluma]

Eschatopolis

Well Eschatopolis is a VERY ugly name.

Wasnt it New Jerusalem?

 

[Beatriz]

Assuming a modern level of telecommunications, I'd say what you're looking for is a location where the working day overlaps with the working day for as much of the world population as possible. It's wasteful to accommodate the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans, but you can get within 6 hours of the time zones of both Japan (the Old World's easternmost nation over 50 million people) and the UK (the Old World's westernmost nation over 50 million people) by sticking your capital in the Indian subcontinent. It shouldn't matter too much exactly where your capital is, as long as there's enough space and water for a major city, but Delhi's been selected as an imperial capital repeatedly over the last millennium, so it must have something going for it.

Also, it would the capital of an Imperial Federation by population weight alone and invading the World Capital by northwest (i.e Russia) is difficult

 

[Paschalis]

was probably already mentioned, but Germany always has a civil war if it wins ww2 with atleast one faction beign the SS and another beign headed by Speer

 

[PakistaniGuyUK]

Without wanting to derail this discussion or posting in the wrong section (yes I know my one's post-1900) can I drop this little gem in: the Balkanization of Pakistan. Its an incredibly irritating recurring theme, no not because of my name, but it gets incredibly irritating seeing people do all sorts of mental gymnastics to make it happen in virtually any situation or timeline you can imagine, even where the likelihood of this occurring is zero. Must be some sort of 'underlying issues' people have towards the existence of Pakistan or maybe its down to the prevelance of Indian posters that this happens (hard to know as many hide behind non-Indian names). Even in threads that have nothing to do with Pakistan this will end up occurring, my favourite recent one an Iran thread where the continued existence of the Pahlavi regime magically results in the Balkanization of Pakistan hahahaha.

Please please this was not meant as a point of discussion its post-1900 so please ignore it and continue with the rest of the discussion. Thanks!

 

[boredviewer1234]

Is that good or bad?

Good for Mongolians who can chart their own destinies sometimes. I think in terms of alternate history it even manages to do better than Switzerland in avoiding conflict.

Bad for revisionist China what that happens in timelines as it's probably not only one of the easiest targets but also in terms of legitimacy as a restoring it to the Qing era quite valuable.

 

[durante]

I believe that when the UN was being created, there was some controversy over where the HQ should be. Of course in the end it was New York, but it's not hard to see how this could be considered problematic.

One solution was the use of an island in the Niagara River, in between Canada and the USA. The two countries have a long friendly history, and the island would be called "Peace Island" or something like that, and the entire thing could be turned over to the UN for administration. Always thought that was an interesting concept.

It was Navy Island, an uninhabited island which is part of Canada, and is about 300x the size of the current UN district in New York.

Navy Island - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

It would also make the UN part of an international metropolis (if Buffalo-Niagara's 1.5 million people could be considered a metropolis).

And, of the 5 members of the security council...it borders 1 and was technically ruled at some point by 2 others.