Which Scenario is the Worst of All...?

Which scenario is the worst of all?

  • The Persians won the Greco-Persian Wars

    Votes: 17 11.7%
  • Alexander the Great never conquered Persian Empire

    Votes: 1 0.7%
  • Roman Empire collapsed during Crisis of Third Century/earlier

    Votes: 2 1.4%
  • Constantinople fell to the Arabs in 7th/8th century

    Votes: 7 4.8%
  • The Moors conquered Frankish Empire

    Votes: 19 13.1%
  • The Anglo-Saxons resisted Norman conquest

    Votes: 2 1.4%
  • The English won the Hundred Years War

    Votes: 5 3.4%
  • The Aztecs and Incas resisted Spanish conquests

    Votes: 3 2.1%
  • Protestant Reformation failed

    Votes: 26 17.9%
  • The Americans lost the American Revolutionary War

    Votes: 15 10.3%
  • The French won the Napoleonic War

    Votes: 5 3.4%
  • CSA won the American Civil War

    Votes: 36 24.8%
  • British Empire lost the "Great Game" and collapsed earlier

    Votes: 7 4.8%

  • Total voters
    145
As for the listed scenarios, I think the Moors conquering the Franks would be the worst, as the west as we know it would be stillborn. While I don't doubt that Islamic civilization was capable of even greater advances than OTL, The Moors conquering France will make it a marginal, war-ridden frontier province of a greater Moorish empire and not the center of European civilization that we know and love.


Not necessarily.

Germany in AD732 was still half Pagan. Even in the bits nominally converted, Christianity was still often only skin deep. So if France falls to Islam, most Germans will probably convert to it over the course of time. Beyond that, Scandinavians and Slavs are still almost entirely Heathen, so it will be a similar story for them. A Moslem France will still be in the heart of a Moslem Western Europe.
 

archaeogeek

Banned
Maybe this whole thing leads to even more heterodox sects than IOTL; although if it does it might also eventually, centuries later, lead to similar bouts of religious enlightment followed by conservatism because the neighbour is not of the same exact sect so it's an easy scapegoat...

On second thought not much changed from christian Europe ;)
The importance of vine in Europe had already led to a loosening of restrictions on wine in Andalusia over time, if they grab France a sect like the alevis or the bektashis is bound to show up locally because after all Allah doesn't mind so much after all, after in His great merciful wisdom He, not the sultan of Faranj obviously, why such insinuations, saw the wealth it brought His faithful ;)
 

Susano

Banned
Hrm. In most of ancient and medieval histroy one realm is just as bad as the other, so that disqualifies most things. And one religion is as bad as the other. However, I must say, if protestant reform failed completly - Im well aware that in the immidate aftermath of the reformation the Catholic countries and courts were mostly the centers of science (but even here: Look at the Netherlands), but its a question of mindset. Protestant areas, while often more conservative, also often developed a much less, hm, spiritual world view, making them open for new lines of thought. Could there really have been something like the Enlightenment if there had been zero Protestant areas in Europe?

If its not that its of course the CSA.
 

archaeogeek

Banned
The french were pretty good at ditching the spiritual world view with only a very small minority of protestants; unless the reformation fails by way of a Guise monarchy, who is to say the increasingly secular humanism of philosophers like Montaigne doesn't survive and go further earlier? Their popularity among the nobility was great, the Essays earned him nobility, the royal orders and a few very prized sinecures giving him pretty much instant access to the king.
 
1. The ionian cities were still hellenistic before the persian wars and still produced culture: the greco-persian wars were while the hellenistic period was in full swing, and Thales of Milet was already long dead. "There would be rebellions" is no different from the fact that the peninsula was almost constantly at war over anything and everything, besides Sparta basically sold out to Persia to be able to beat Athens later and Greece was still not made a satrapy, so it's not like it's absolutely certain; and I doubt you'd have mass revolts, particularly when most of the population would be newly freed slaves. Drop Herodotus, now.


Ah, but the highest peak of Greek civilization was in "Classical" and "Hellenistic" ages, both were created because of Greek victory over the Persians. And the Persians didn't make Ionia a satrapy and instead gave them an autonomy for obvious reason: they fear for another "Ionian Revolt" and, of course, for another Greco-Persian War. Don't forget, in my scenario the Persians ALWAYS won, so they never afraid to be "brutal" to the Greeks.

2. Islam didn't spread through conquest, the political power of the caliphate did, it took until the 10th century for people to start converting en masse.

Yeah, and since both "Moors won" and "Constantinople fell" scenarios happened during the period when the caliphate still projected their political power using conquests, there would be thousands Europeans died and enslaved by Arabs/Moors.

3. How does this make any damn sense? It's already obvious at the time of the HYW who is going to win in Spain and the Andalusian princes are going to need an El Cid to recover.

Alright, the Reconquista might still happened, but I'm still thinking that Anglo-Saxon England and English France (or Anglo-French Union) might have great effect to Iberia (and all of Europe too).

4. "Dominate" you mean: there was no way the other great powers would let Russia dominate the ottomans, as shown in 1878 where pretty much everyone was arming them, and historically, neither the russians nor the british did win, then, since they carved out areas of influence in Persia and incompetence of their colonial forces left Afghanistan as a buffer zone. The Russians will also not conquer Qing china, let alone keep it; a few limited successes on the coast over a drug war and all out conquest are two completely different matters, and so long as CHina is independent, it's only influenced so far as you get a good trade treaty, nothing more. Besides Qing China was also not entirely (very far from it) under british influence. It was carved up between the powers. Also Vladivostok says hi.

Russia also didn't have a good land path to take India, France, the Netherlands and Prussia would have been the likely contenders: Russia is not a naval power and there's mountains and deserts on the way.

Well, actually it was primarily the British who prevented Russians dominate everything in Asia. So in "British lost" scenario, there would be no "carving out" things, as the Russians would MUCH more freely to projected their influences. And actually in OTL Tsar Nicholas II did have the plan to using Afghanistan as a staging post for Russian invasion of India. (that was actually one of the primary reasons why "Great Game" happened in the first place)
 

archaeogeek

Banned
I see, taking over India was altruism... The british couldn't take Afghanistan, the Russians are unlikely to either; it's too far from supply lines, has 7 million people, and it's mountainous terrain on both sides in which the Russians would probably have the same problem as in the Ottoman Empire (i.e. suddenly finding out the afghan cavalry is fielding krupps and leclercs).
You have a rather strange reading of history; how did any of the things you describe not happen to begin with?

Also, the height of Greek culture didn't start in Greece, but in Sicily.

And of course every one of your ancient POD have great effects, they're still not quantifiably bad effects. They're unquantifiable, thousands of years changing butterflies. We can't even know what will happen.
 
Last edited:
Moslem Western Europe.

Which, as a whole, will be considered an uncultured semi-dhimmi backwater by rest of the Muslim world.

Sure the moors would build mosques and universities like the Franks built cathedrals, but they will be all built in more-Islamised areas of southern Spain. There is a world of difference between being the ruling tribe, and being a peripheral people even if the franks do convert to Islam.

So if France falls to Islam, most Germans will probably convert to it over the course of time

Why? The Warlike Germans of this time would be very interested in a "just war" against the Moors.
 
You have a rather strange reading of history; how did any of the things you describe not happen to begin with?

Well, I'm just an amateur in world's history, so please apologize if I have said something wrong...

They're unquantifiable, thousands of years changing butterflies. We can't even know what will happen.

Wholeheartedly agree...
 

Valdemar II

Banned
I don't see a Muslim victory over the Franks as such a big deal, yes it would have both good and bad effects. But foremost it wouldn't mean a conquest of France, it would mean a conquest of Southen France and a interesting split of westen Europe between a Germanic north, Muslim-Latin south west and a Lombard Italy. The Arabs conquest would mean the vast population would become second class subjects, but it would also make the Muslim part of Europe part of the Dar al-Islam intellectual milieu giving them access to the development we saw in the Islamic golden age (in OTL we saw great agricultural improvements and the introduction of paper and several other discoveries). Italy on the other hands, would be both be under pressure from the Muslims, but at the same time free from the Frankish threat, likely resulting in a unified Italy, creating a unitarian state with the great development we saw in OTL. Another bonus are the weaker position of the Pope, with a little luck we will avoid the split, creating a much more unified and less centralised Christianity. All in all it's a different Europe which enter the Middle Ages, but I don't think it would be worse.
 
And then there's "The Aztecs and Incas resisted Spanish conquest", which is contradictive in that it includes a bad thing and a good thing. The Aztecs resisting conquest is a bad thing, just compare their philosophies behind their actions in central america:
The Spanish believed themselves to have the divine right to enslave, force-convert, rape and murder everyone in sight.
The Aztecs beölieved themselves to have the divine duty to enslave and murder, with a few limited rights of enslaving and raping...
Oh yes, because no other empire in history ever killed or enslaves people... :rolleyes:

The Aztecs were brutal, yes, but they never committed genocide. Sacrificing prisoners of war (as was expected in the area, it was their culture) does not compare to wholesale slaughter and enslavement of every nation in Central America.
 
Sure the moors would build mosques and universities like the Franks built cathedrals, but they will be all built in more-Islamised areas of southern Spain. There is a world of difference between being the ruling tribe, and being a peripheral people even if the franks do convert to Islam.


The Turks started out as a "preipheral people". Didn't stop them fighting their way into the heart of the Islamic world, and establishing the Ottoman Empire.
 

Susano

Banned
The Aztecs were brutal, yes, but they never committed genocide. Sacrificing prisoners of war (as was expected in the area, it was their culture) does not compare to wholesale slaughter and enslavement of every nation in Central America.

Well, population levels in the Mexican Highland dropped undr them due to their constant warfare, but its a far cry from the population drop the Spaniards caused, its true. The Atztec Empire didntr eally "deserve" to survive, but it was less bad than the alternative...
 
Top