What is Before 1900's "Sealion"?

Real life is not a game of Crusader Kings.
Real life is not a game of [whatever], is one of the most important rules to remember in alternate history.

The same is true when you try to write believable Science Fiction, Fantasy, or simply try to predict the future. It is sadly something even many professional writers fail at.
 
It's entirely possible that the Caliphate conquers southern France. After all, they came pretty close to doing so IOTL.

The Caliphate was running low on manpower already, I doubt they could have held onto southern France for long. Now, a victory in a similar battle half a century later after Al-Andalus is independent and self sufficient, that might be a different story.
 
With a few events going differently (specifically, one, which is if Lincoln had trusted his own judgement on Dec 26 1861) the Trent Affair might have had London sending ironclads to New York.

Maybe Prince Albert dying a few days earlier and not getting Palmerston to tone down his letter to Lincoln would do the trick too?
 
The thing about Sealion is that it's at one and the same time extremely popular (especially among people not from the site) and extremely, amazingly unlikely.

Not many things in Pre 1900 fulfil both criteria. Confederate Victory is common, but is not sufficiently unlikely - if the US had a large formed army before the Civil War and the CSA did not, that would be one thing, but both sides were starting from the same comparison point. (If the Germans had repeatedly secured a foothold on English soil and the Soviets had a battlefleet six times larger than the Royal Navy, we would not consider Sealion nigh impossible.)

Uh no the US and the CSA did not start at the same 'comparison point.' The North had more resources at the start than the South: more people, more railroads, more telegraph communications, and more factories. Also, the Navy stayed loyal to the North and was able to more or less successfully blockade the South. Traditionally the only thing the South had going for it was better generals than the North. But even this view has seen some revisionism as a lot of Lost Cause myths are debunked.
 
I would say it is close but not quite that. An exhaustion scenario may barely be possible. I would say 1:1000 or so. The CSA taking DC definitely is. In fact the CSA taking (as opposed to raiding) any US city of any real importance.

If Bragg and Kirby had worked together in 1862 they probably would take Louisville and cause concern, especially in Indiana and southern Illinois. By itself such an act might not win the war but the potential butterflies could spawn interesting scenarios.
 
Uh no the US and the CSA did not start at the same 'comparison point.' The North had more resources at the start than the South: more people, more railroads, more telegraph communications, and more factories. Also, the Navy stayed loyal to the North and was able to more or less successfully blockade the South. Traditionally the only thing the South had going for it was better generals than the North. But even this view has seen some revisionism as a lot of Lost Cause myths are debunked.

The Union also had the loyalty and services of Montgomery Meigs, arguably one of the best-kept secrets for either side.
 
Most scenarios about a pagan country "reforming" its faith into a pagan Church. Real life is not a game of Crusader Kings.

It really depends on what you mean by "paganism". If you consider Zoroastrianism to be a "pagan" religion, the religion after the successful Sassanid reforms, with its rigid monotheism and iconoclasm, can be said to be a reformed "pagan" religion. It largely stopped the expansion of Christianity by Iranic peoples within the borders of the Sassanid Empire - but then the two centuries of Islamic rule came and converted Persia, turning Zoroastrianism into a minor religion. And if you consider Hinduism to be a "pagan" religion, it reformed itself under monotheism, what with the adoption of the reforms of Chaitanya, Kabir, Dadu, and co., as well as the absolute dominance of Advaita Vedanta (something like Neoplatonism) as the dominant school of Hinduism.

On another note, I really do dislike the whole "Christianity expands forever!" school of thought. Christianity isn't a religion that will instantly be adopted as soon as proselytizers come. It requires a strong state to spread it and destroy opposition, and in circumstances in which Christianity is opposed to the nation's stability and associated with the enemy, as with the case of the Sassanid Empire, it can only really expand into the hinterland, as was the case with Sassanid Mesopotamia.
 
Seriously, Greek/Byzantine Meiji after its Independence. Why the hell has no one done this?!

It would probably require a larger Greece, since it looks like major coal deposits are further north in the Balkans and east in Anatolia. A very interesting idea, though...

Also great point about ASB. People just scream ASB at anything now a days, and basically just stab everyone's fun in the face. Considering the nature of the ASB forum (I have looked at it occasionally), simply having an unlikely scenario that is well explained IS. NOT. ASB.

Absolutely agree, I could not say it better. Unlikely is not the same as impossible, and an unrealistic scenario is not the same as a bad one. There are many high quality TLs or map series based on extremely unlikely or even impossible events.
 
In the most literal sense, Hideyoshi's plan to conquer Asia. Beyond that:

Ottoman Italy
Asians colonizing the Americans across the Pacific
(IMO) preserving the Crusader States
Iberians conquering the Maghreb.
Europeans conquering more than the minimal ports (i.e. vast parts of the hinterland) of Asia before at least the 18th century if not later
Most Latin America wanks
Most indigenous survival TLs
African/Maghrebi colonization of the Americas
 
It would probably require a larger Greece, since it looks like major coal deposits are further north in the Balkans and east in Anatolia. A very interesting idea, though...



Absolutely agree, I could not say it better. Unlikely is not the same as impossible, and an unrealistic scenario is not the same as a bad one. There are many high quality TLs or map series based on extremely unlikely or even impossible events.

1. Please someone do this, I will help in any way I can, I have the knowledge, but I'm tied down by Exams and my own timeline

2. Yeah, exactly. I made the son of Cesare Borgia a Roman Emperor. And it's all fairly explained, so... Anything is probably possible.
 
In the most literal sense, Hideyoshi's plan to conquer Asia. Beyond that:

Ottoman Italy
Asians colonizing the Americans across the Pacific
(IMO) preserving the Crusader States
Iberians conquering the Maghreb.
Europeans conquering more than the minimal ports (i.e. vast parts of the hinterland) of Asia before at least the 18th century if not later
Most Latin America wanks
Most indigenous survival TLs
African/Maghrebi colonization of the Americas

OK, I'm curious since I'm not knowledgeable enough about a few of these.

If the Ottomans were (ahistorically) interested in Italy why couldn't they have held part of it temporarily?

Do you think the Crusader states could have survived if they had taken more territory? For example a successful Egyptian crusade? Not that that is very plausible....

What would you view as a plausible Latin America wank?
 
1. Please someone do this, I will help in any way I can, I have the knowledge, but I'm tied down by Exams and my own timeline

I have been considering a different Greek independence in my own TL, but hadn't thought of them industrializing. I'm most definitely intrigued by it, but don't want to spoil any future plans :p
 
I have been considering a different Greek independence in my own TL, but hadn't thought of them industrializing. I'm most definitely intrigued by it, but don't want to spoil any future plans :p

Do it. I will immediately help you out/subscribe to that. Many people here would agree.
 

Saphroneth

Banned
Uh no the US and the CSA did not start at the same 'comparison point.' The North had more resources at the start than the South: more people, more railroads, more telegraph communications, and more factories. Also, the Navy stayed loyal to the North and was able to more or less successfully blockade the South. Traditionally the only thing the South had going for it was better generals than the North. But even this view has seen some revisionism as a lot of Lost Cause myths are debunked.
In land military terms, the Northern prewar army vanished without trace into the Union army, and both sides were comparably armed and sized in the first year. That's what I meant.

One of the Lost Cause myths that's been debunked is the idea the South was heavily outnumbered in the field, after all.

The comparison with Sealion would be if the Hochsee Flotte not only existed in 1939 but was actually the same size as the RN.
 
Do it. I will immediately help you out/subscribe to that. Many people here would agree.

Well the focus of the TL will still be on one of those Latin American wanks that have already been mentioned in this thread, but I do still want to use the idea. Do you mind if I send you a PM to throw some ideas around sometime once I reach that point in the narrative?
 
Well the focus of the TL will still be on one of those Latin American wanks that have already been mentioned in this thread, but I do still want to use the idea. Do you mind if I send you a PM to throw some ideas around sometime once I reach that point in the narrative?

Absolutely no problem.
 
Top