WI: Socrates forgotten, sophists triumphant?

I have to admit I had not heard of Brownian motion, so I had to google it...and if Wikipedia's article on it is remotely accurate...then I still don't see how it prevents the birth of Jesus. I'm not being stubborn, I simply don't understand. We agree that the POD will have far-reaching repercussions for Christianity's history. It might ALSO mean that Jesus, John the Baptist, or Peter turn out differently. And I'd love to hear your thoughts on that subject. But I honest-to-God (no pun intended) don't see how you go from "Athenian philosophy changes dramatically" to "Jesus isn't born".

If I understand what I've heard of it as a reason for chaos theory alt history correctly, it basically is assuming that everything after the POD is rerolled, and the odds of OTL coming up (as opposed to some other 1/6 or whatever possibility) are virtually nil.
 

Alkahest

Banned
Go ahead. It's very interesting and quite well described place. And incredibly contradictory for modern person.

Just don't touch Hammond :D (He's good, hut he could bore true enthusiast)
I shall keep that in mind. Anyway, my growing interest in Athens is based on me finally understanding that by changing Athens, you can change all of Western civilization while still keeping it recognizably Western. Another Athens = another world. It's a wonderful place and time to tinker with.
Not much of theory, anyway. Just a hunch that Athens, being so into trade and at the same so big (farmland-wise), were going to have significant poor strata. Hmm, that doesn't make any sense. So perhaps i think it was their tradition? They clung to it quite fiercely and so it seems that they were used to it.
Tradition is pretty easy to change, though. My experience is that traditions can be molded in order to fit new economic and social situations, at least in cultures that survive for a long time.
When i wrote "politial reform in League", i came up with something like direct democracies in city-states AND sort of representative democracies on upper, "Empire" level. Then i vaguely remembered that it was sort of the case IOTL and that it didn't work out to well due to the Athens monopolizing and using League as its tool... still, it's the non-oligarchic/aristocratic/monarchic solution.
Interesting, I'll have to read up on that. (When I have time, that is. Why much work get in the way of my hobbies? How very rude of it.)
Romans didn't exactly were that philhellenic. They had more complicated relationship, say, like Americans to Europe in late XIXc... or Russians. Mixture of admiration, awareness of intellectual inferiority and at the same time contempt for the overly intellectual and "decadent" Hellenes. Seems typical, actually. It seems it's not so unique to Romans, then. Although i don't know enough about actual hellenism relationship to old eastern cultures to say anything about their reception to Greek culture. Macedonians OTOH, were folks that aspired to be the Greeks to the extent you attributed to Romans.
Calling everyone more culturally advanced "decadent" and everyone less culturally advanced "barbarian" seems to be a common theme in human history. Possibly because both words lack clear definitions.
Let's not get into oligarchic and ancient way of thinking too much. Wealthier=!more intelligent :D ;)
Well, there's certainly a correlation between being rich and being educated, at least.
To the point, i don't know what's the point... you didn't really had to be citizen to partake in cultural life, only in political... what's the goal of including only selected people as citizens? I'm not sure, but perhaps yoou think that citizenship was something that defined everything? It wasn't so - citizenship was for polis, which was strictly limited geographically, but there was also sense of cultural unity among Hellenes, and also sort of agreements between poleis aimed at sort of a theoretical merge while remaining distinct, that is, granting mutual citizenship en masse. Isopoliteia, or something. IIRC, Platea had such relatinship with Athens.
The right to speak in front of the legislative body and change the laws was certainly something that would interest at least a few foreigners. If people didn't care about the right to vote, why did we have suffragettes IOTL?
The problem is that Greeks were unruly particularist bunch and Athens alone doesn't have the army of Macedonia, so yes, it's hard to maintain hegemony by force. I'm not sure how to solve that, though. The democracy is not a problem per se, the particularism and the inability of polis to expand its political base outside the, well, polis, is the problem. Rome had similar one, but it at least had Latium. And better approach to allies, apparently.
An alliance between Athens and Macedon leading to a Macedonian empire with Athens having more power and independence than IOTL, perhaps?
 

Maur

Banned
I thought that teleology was the thread topic and not that sociopolitical stuff, but apparently i was wrong :D

This is the last post I'll make on this subject, as I believe Alkahest is correct and a discussion of Teleology has gotten us off topic.

I honestly have no idea what any of this has to do with your assertion that final causes don't exist.
Not much if you treat final cause in Aristotelean sense. But if you treat it as a most important cause (what you said and what is the philosophical stance), it's the critique of this position (and coincidentally the four-way split of causes, which doesn't have much to do with modern science, anyway). Final cause is not more important than other, but i guess that's relativism :D

In every way? Copernicus was a European, he built upon previous theories of Astronomy and was immersed in the science and thinking of his time, which was still Aristotelian.
Hm. I'm not sure what were these previous astronomy theories. Surely not Ptolemaic? :D Anyway, let's drop him and get something more fitting;

Philippe de La Hire. French, i assume influenced by Aristotle, yet Jai Singh of India had the same achievements (or better, actually). Aristotelean though isn't needed.

You are incorrect. One may say "It is in its nature" only as a vague truth. The specifics would be more, you know, specific. For example, Aristotle may say that there is something in a bird's nature that lets it fly, and left it at that. But that's only because he wasn't aware of aerodynamics. A modern person would still say that it is the bird's nature, but we would specify how it's in its nature, pointing out the way it is build and its affect on the air.
I'm right - in history it was used as an alternative to empirical, scientific study.

Modern person still has human mind and thus is very prone to teleology. Even evolutionists use it as a thinking shortcut. Which brings us to this point:

"Common psychological knowledge" which I have never heard of, and which I doubt is true given history. Therefore I will not take your word for it.
Hm, it's so common that i actually had to put some time googling this :D

So let's resort to wiki on Piaget... (he's obsolete in many details, though)

The Symbolic Function Substage
Occurs between about the ages of 2 and 7.During 2-4 years old , kids cannot yet manipulate and transform information in logical ways, but they now can think in images and symbols. The child is able to formulate designs of objects that are not present. Other examples of mental abilities are language and pretend play. Although there is an advancement in progress, there are still limitations such as egocentrism and animism. Egocentrism occurs when a child is unable to distinguish between their own perspective and that of another person's. Children tend to pick their own view of what they see rather than the actual view shown to others.An example is an experiment performed by Piaget and Barbel Inhelder. Three views of a mountain are shown and the child is asked what a traveling doll would see at the various angles; the child picks their own view compared to the actual view of the doll. Animism is the belief that inanimate objects are capable of actions and have lifelike qualities. An example is a child believing that the sidewalk was mad and made them fall down.

Well, anyway, you can google "cognitive development" yourself.


I previously pointed out Evolution, and more specifically, that Biology in the 19th century was at least half dominated by Teleology. We wouldn't have Darwin without that half.

You would be wrong, and amazingly, wikipedia correct. Teleology was important to the formation of modern Evolutionary thought, and it is still important in making Evolution make sense. You can't properly define evolution without its Telos.
Oh no, i am completely right. I don't really know about Darwin, and i doubt it - and more to the point, modern evolutionary thought is completely divorced from teleological thinking (as RGB pointed). Note the long talk page of that specific wiki article, btw.

But as I said, this is the last I'll speak of this in this thread. If any of you wish to continue, feel free to PM me or something.
Well, whatever you want, forum posting is voluntary activity after all ;)
 

Alkahest

Banned
I have to admit I had not heard of Brownian motion, so I had to google it...and if Wikipedia's article on it is remotely accurate...then I still don't see how it prevents the birth of Jesus. I'm not being stubborn, I simply don't understand. We agree that the POD will have far-reaching repercussions for Christianity's history. It might ALSO mean that Jesus, John the Baptist, or Peter turn out differently. And I'd love to hear your thoughts on that subject. But I honest-to-God (no pun intended) don't see how you go from "Athenian philosophy changes dramatically" to "Jesus isn't born".
A change to Athenian philosophy doesn't lead to titanium butterfly nets over Judea. In a chaotic system the most minute change (and this is certainly not a minute change, I might add) leads to ripples that grow larger and larger over time. A certain person being born depends not only on two persons meeting and procreating, it depends on the exact same sperm being produced and merging with the right egg. You don't need a math degree to understand that the chance of an person from OTL being born several hundreds years after a POD is so small that it for all intents and purposes might as well not exist.
Well, considering how completely dominant the ideas you're going to butterfly away have been; if you're just changing their places for ideas that failed OTL, then it would stand to reason, I think, that the ideas of the sophists have the same influence as those of Plato OTL. And that means eradicating the idea of absolute truth, as anything but a quaint whim of some ancient philosopher.
As said, one generation of Greek philosophers can't kill the idea of absolute truth forever, but they can certainly make other ideas more influential.
We know nothing about the odds. There might very well be someone else who gains similar popularity and audience....then again, there might not. It's absolutely impossible to tell.
We do know that the chances aren't 50/50 just because something might or might not happen. If you can provide evidence that Jesus just happened to be the person who triggered a previously very likely sociocultural change in the Roman Empire, I'll believe that someone else could have done the job. But what I know suggests that Jesus and his followers simply had a lot of luck.
Btw, Life of Brian wasn't all that funny, IMHO. It was more akin to a bunch of kindergardners saying dirty words and finding it hilarious because the grown-ups disapprove...and that's coming from a Monty Python-fan :)
I'm not sure who the kindergarteners and the grown-ups would translate to. I certainly hope you don't consider Mary Whitehouse the adult here.
 
Wait, why is talking about Greek philosophy off topic when the POD is in Greek philosophical development?
 
A certain person being born depends not only on two persons meeting and procreating, it depends on the exact same sperm being produced and merging with the right egg. You don't need a math degree to understand that the chance of an person from OTL being born several hundreds years after a POD is so small that it for all intents and purposes might as well not exist.

Staying with that theory of Jesus' origin (for the sake of argument): How does a change in Athenean philosophy change which of Joseph's sperm cells meet which of Mary's eggcells?
Or, another example (though one totally beside the point of this TL): Let's say Miguel de la Madrid does not win the Mexican presidential election of 1982. Why would that, in and of itself, mean that I (born 1983) wasn't born?
Or....let's say that Denmark somehow (how is not important here!) retains Scania, Halland and Blekinge. How would that, in and of itself, mean that Elvis Presley isn't born almost three centuries later?
That kind of reasoning makes no sense, IMHO, because one assumes that events that aren't affected by the POD, ARE.

As said, one generation of Greek philosophers can't kill the idea of absolute truth forever, but they can certainly make other ideas more influential.

And how influential are the ideas of the sophists today?

We do know that the chances aren't 50/50 just because something might or might not happen.

I never made that claim. I only said that your carte-blanche butterflying Christianity (or something like it) away isn't a necessary consequence of the POD.

If you can provide evidence that Jesus just happened to be the person who triggered a previously very likely sociocultural change in the Roman Empire, I'll believe that someone else could have done the job. But what I know suggests that Jesus and his followers simply had a lot of luck.

Again: What makes you so sure that OTHERS could not have had that kind of luck, even assuming that the POD butterflies Jesus away (which I'm not willing to concede)?

I'm not sure who the kindergarteners and the grown-ups would translate to. I certainly hope you don't consider Mary Whitehouse the adult here.

The kindergardners would be MP. They knew how upset they'd make a lot of people by ridiculing Jesus. No, just to get any suspicions out of the way: I'm NOT saying they should've been prohibited from doing so. I'm NOT saying that they don't have the right. I'm not even saying they should apologize. I'm saying that it was childish and immature, serving no purpose other than taking deliberately taking a piss on millions of people, just because they could. I don't know who Mary Whitehouse is, but I googled her, and can't, from skimming her wikipedia-page, see where she's connected to Monty Python or "Life of Brian"?
 
Staying with that theory of Jesus' origin (for the sake of argument): How does a change in Athenean philosophy change which of Joseph's sperm cells meet which of Mary's eggcells?

Well, for a start, given that Joseph and Mary are several hundred years down the line, it means that Joseph's sperm and Mary's egg won't even exist to have Jesus of Nazareth in the first place, as there won't be a Joseph and Mary of Nazareth. (Or at least, not that particular couple, as Joseph and Mary were rather... popular names at that time.) For that to happen would require every single coupling that ultimately produced Joseph and Mary to go EXACTLY as it did in the original timeline--that is to say each ancestor would have to have EXACTLY the same children that they did IOTL, who would marry the same people they did IOTL, and have the same children they did IOTL, etc.

Any casual consideration would show that such an occurence would be extraordinarily unlikely. This is because--and you will forgive me if I note that you seem not to be understanding this simple point--any given egg is not destined to be fertilized by one particular sperm beforehand. Fertilization is largely random. While it's fairly likely you would initially see many people very similar to those IOTL for some time after the POD--the chances of any particular sperm fertilizing any particular egg are pretty slim, but any particular sperm happens to have a large number of near duplicates--others would be missing, and some might be completely different. Allow these changes to compound over several centuries--as they inevitably would--and by the end of it, you're looking at a world with an almost completely different set of people in it.
 
Well, for a start, given that Joseph and Mary are several hundred years down the line, it means that Joseph's sperm and Mary's egg won't even exist to have Jesus of Nazareth in the first place, as there won't be a Joseph and Mary of Nazareth.
(Or at least, not that particular couple, as Joseph and Mary were rather... popular names at that time.) For that to happen would require every single coupling that ultimately produced Joseph and Mary to go EXACTLY as it did in the original timeline--that is to say each ancestor would have to have EXACTLY the same children that they did IOTL, who would marry the same people they did IOTL, and have the same children they did IOTL, etc.

Any casual consideration would show that such an occurence would be extraordinarily unlikely. This is because--and you will forgive me if I note that you seem not to be understanding this simple point--any given egg is not destined to be fertilized by one particular sperm beforehand. Fertilization is largely random. While it's fairly likely you would initially see many people very similar to those IOTL for some time after the POD--the chances of any particular sperm fertilizing any particular egg are pretty slim, but any particular sperm happens to have a large number of near duplicates--others would be missing, and some might be completely different. Allow these changes to compound over several centuries--as they inevitably would--and by the end of it, you're looking at a world with an almost completely different set of people in it.

I'm perfectly aware of the lack of predestination in matters of procreation :mad: Don't treat me as if I'm stupid, please! Am I really the only one having trouble with the claim that this POD in effect means that everything ELSE (even matters completely unrelated to it) changes as well? Why would a different cell meet a different egg, because of a change in philosophy elsewhere? Am I the only one who can't see why Danish retention of Scania would mean "No Elvis", or why the outcome of a Mexican presidential election would butterfly me (and you guys too, if I've understood it correctly - well those of you not born in 1982) away? The idea seems ridiculous!
 
Last edited:

Alkahest

Banned
If you refuse to accept the fundamental assumptions of chaos theory, I do think that you will find yourself in a rather small minority on this forum.
 
I'm perfectly aware of the lack of predestination in matters of procreation :mad: Don't treat me as if I'm stupid, please! Am I really the only one having trouble with the claim that this POD in effect means that everything ELSE (even matters completely unrelated to it) changes as well? Why would a different cell meet a different egg, because of a change in philosophy elsewhere? Am I the only one who can't see why Danish retention of Scania would mean "No Elvis", or why the outcome of a Mexican presidential election would butterfly me (and you guys too, if I've understood it correctly - well those of you not born in 1982) away? The idea seems ridiculous!

Danish Scania would change great power politics in Europe changing immigration patterns and making likely that Elvis Presley's ancestors don't even meet.
 
I'm perfectly aware of the lack of predestination in matters of procreation :mad: Don't treat me as if I'm stupid, please! Am I really the only one having trouble with the claim that this POD in effect means that everything ELSE (even matters completely unrelated to it) changes as well? Why would a different cell meet a different egg, because of a change in philosophy elsewhere? Am I the only one who can't see why Danish retention of Scania would mean "No Elvis", or why the outcome of a Mexican presidential election would butterfly me (and you guys too, if I've understood it correctly - well those of you not born in 1982) away? The idea seems ridiculous!

Well, there are quite obvious causal connections between Greek philosophy and Judean peasant marriages. For instance, this PoD would affect what Hellenization looked like. Therefore, the Jews, while eventually revolting against the Selucids, do so in a different fashion. Now Joseph's great-great-great...mother and great-great-great...father never meet or they have children by different people since they don't work out to be on the same sides they were OTL. Bada-bang bada-boom, Joseph can't exist any longer since the chain of parentage that led to him no longer exists.

Similarly, a different outcome to the Mexican Presidential election of 1982 quite likely butterflies you away even without going into sperm randomization. Since that means Mexico's politics significantly change (you did just overthrow the PRI!), US politics and business significantly change. That has an effect on your parent's life (I dunno what your parents do, but whatever it is it would probably be affected by something that large and unexpected!), and they don't conceive you on the same day they did IOTL. Instead, your sibling is conceived on a different day, and they aren't any more similar to you than you are to your siblings (assuming you have any).
 

Maur

Banned
On a side note, Life of Brian was ridiculing Jesus? I'd never think so.


Alkahest,

(note: if the following doesn't make sense, then it probably doesn't. That's because i couldn't come up with anything well thought-out but didn't want to leave without reply)

I don't know. The more i think about it, the more impossible it seems.

(It being the Athenian/Greek empire)

I try to imagine how it would look like and it just doesn't come together. Idk if it's my OTL bias, or that it wasn't suited to sustained expansion.

Colonies - more than they did IOTL. Hmm, i think it won't work. Too few Athenians, and its politial system is not suitable for large number of them.

Outright conquest... ok, let's gloss over the relatively small army. What would they do? They would either destroy the inhabitants (sell into slavery) and we have above situation, or make it a client, or? And somehow i think it wouldn't last.

Why it doesn't seem to last no matter what? Maybe it's the thing that no Greek city was able to achieve dominance because others tended to band together against hegemon and no one had enough resources anyway (even though Athens were so large)?

But perhaps destruction of Sparta would allow Athens to somehow overcome this? DUnno. Somehow Rome did it, despite similar beginnings, and i don't think it's the political system...

Anyway, i tried to find analogy and there comes Carthago. It's model of expansion seems more suited to Athens, somehow (granted, my knowledge about Carthago is lacking, but...).

Something more of an ally/client that outright annexation as in Roman case.

Also, why do you want Athenian empire? OTL is basically Greek cultural wank anyway, so tell me again what it is supposed to change?


Ok. Let me add some remarks regarding your post. I'm not sure why i think Greeks would be hard to get democracy out of their heads. Perhaps because it was THE conflict in Greece (as much as Rome was about patricians vs. plebeians, IOW optimates vs. populars)

I think that calling (decadent vs. barbarian) is because people are incredibly serious about their sense of worthiness, and anything that threatens their sense of being good enough, which most often translates into not being worse than others is frightening, and they go to great lenghts to avoid that. I'm actually talking about individuals, but it seems to spill over to societes.

Mind you, i have no idea if foreigners cared about the right to vote. But perhaps these foreigners were citizens of other poleis, or subjects of some kingdom, and anyway the distances involved were rather smaller. So in fact the situation isn't directly comparable, as they were, well, foreigers. Suffrage was about actual inhabitants of countires (as far as i know, foreigners still don't have suffrage, except in EU on municipial level, and thats only for the Federation, uh, i mean EU, member states)

I'm not sure what how do you envision that alliance. IIRC, Athens were at times allied and at times at war with Macedonia. Mind you, Greek politics were extremely volatile, despite having some constants (like Spartan-Athenian or Argolidian-Spartan or Athenian-Aeginetian or Corinthian-Athenian rivalries...). I mean, i don't know any other time and place that was such clusterfuck. Anyway, before Phillip Macedonia was sort of barbaric state, and after him Athens were going to be the junior partner, which they wouldn't accept given their hellenic pride.
 
I'm perfectly aware of the lack of predestination in matters of procreation :mad: Don't treat me as if I'm stupid, please! Am I really the only one having trouble with the claim that this POD in effect means that everything ELSE (even matters completely unrelated to it) changes as well? Why would a different cell meet a different egg, because of a change in philosophy elsewhere? Am I the only one who can't see why Danish retention of Scania would mean "No Elvis", or why the outcome of a Mexican presidential election would butterfly me (and you guys too, if I've understood it correctly - well those of you not born in 1982) away? The idea seems ridiculous!

You are confused on matters of causality. It would not happen differently BECAUSE of this act. It would happen differently because it is a largely random event with millions of different outcomes being allowed to happen under its own power. (For similar reasons you're likely to see different Lottery winners in your 1982 Mexican election scenario.) And again--while I suspect you'd likely see many people very similar to OTL's at first, changes compound over the centuries. (Further, as truth pointed out, these things are often more connected than you might think initially.)
 
Last edited:
You are confused on matters of causality. It would not happen differently BECAUSE of this act. It would happen differently because it is a largely random event with millions of different outcomes being allowed to happen under its own power. (For similar reasons you're likely to see different Lottery winners in your 1982 Mexican election scenario.) And again--while I suspect you'd likely see many people very similar to OTL's at first, changes compound over the centuries. (Further, as truth pointed out, these things are often more connected than you might think initially.)

I have to admit to leaning towards agreeing with Civis here, at least to a point.

Let's say that everything in Judea is unaffected. For discussion's sake. (how much that's true isn't the point). The only change is that we've started changing events elsewhere. There's no change that would cause Mary and Joseph's ancestors to be different than OTL or in different places or do different things.

So why would you be less likely to get a 1 (Jesus) than a 3 (stillborn baby girl)? You wouldn't be. You could have #3 happen, or you could have #1 happen. Even centuries after the POD.

If, and this is the key thing, things have remained unaffected.

To me, the main thing is that they won't be. Over the course of centuries, any significant POD in two interconnected areas (even if the POD doesn't directly influence events somewhere - let's take Teutonburger Wald as something that won't specifically impact Arabia in and of itself) will see things gradually migrate from A Short History Of Dummies* and things will not be like they were by the time of Mohammad's birth (Peace be upon him) in regards to the various combination of specific circumstances. Because in a world where the Romans win there, different things will happen. Which will in turn cause other different things to happen. Which will in turn cause other things to happen. Until you're having events reacting to events that are reacting to events that weren't even possibilities from the events of OTL - you've gone into an entirely different world.

Let's use a small example. In A Short History of Dummies, I don't get an apple or take a walk instead of posting this long winded post.

1) I decide to get up from my chair, get dressed (never mind that its two in the morning), and take a walk.

And I get abducted by aliens.

I think we can trace how that makes a difference in my life that would impact the likelihood that thirty years from now I'll be a famous writer. And will impact other people.

2) On the other hand, me getting up to get an apple? Probably won't. The difference is so small as to be unable to stir a ripple - so that ripple won't impact anyone, including me.

So I suppose the point of this is that while I think changes to Judea would have to happen to have changes to Jesus, changes to Judea happening as a consequence of something where the POD is a change to Greek philosophy is not all that far fetched if we explore how people do different things and how different people do things as a result - Socrates being forgotten naturally means certain things have happened, Athens being more successful means certain things have happened, and equally importantly, both things mean that certain things haven't happened. The combination of what has and hasn't happened of the infinity minus one (as in, not technically infinite but so broad as to be impossible to list) possibilities will be increasingly different as Sophistry Forever (the timeline we're talking about in this thread) moves on.

But in say, the Americas (which are called something different almost certainly)? They won't notice the difference for a long time.


*: A Short History of Dummies is my sarcastic term for OTL, as one of the possible timelines that branched off from 4000 BC (when Civilization - the game, that is - starts). :D Other timelines are too numerous to keep track of, but we happen to be living in the world where A Short History of Dummies took place, and everything else is "alternate".
 
I have to admit to leaning towards agreeing with Civis here, at least to a point.

Let's say that everything in Judea is unaffected. For discussion's sake. (how much that's true isn't the point). The only change is that we've started changing events elsewhere. There's no change that would cause Mary and Joseph's ancestors to be different than OTL or in different places or do different things.

So why would you be less likely to get a 1 (Jesus) than a 3 (stillborn baby girl)? You wouldn't be. You could have #3 happen, or you could have #1 happen. Even centuries after the POD.

If, and this is the key thing, things have remained unaffected.

To me, the main thing is that they won't be. Over the course of centuries, any significant POD in two interconnected areas (even if the POD doesn't directly influence events somewhere - let's take Teutonburger Wald as something that won't specifically impact Arabia in and of itself) will see things gradually migrate from A Short History Of Dummies* and things will not be like they were by the time of Mohammad's birth (Peace be upon him) in regards to the various combination of specific circumstances. Because in a world where the Romans win there, different things will happen. Which will in turn cause other different things to happen. Which will in turn cause other things to happen. Until you're having events reacting to events that are reacting to events that weren't even possibilities from the events of OTL - you've gone into an entirely different world.

Let's use a small example. In A Short History of Dummies, I don't get an apple or take a walk instead of posting this long winded post.

1) I decide to get up from my chair, get dressed (never mind that its two in the morning), and take a walk.

And I get abducted by aliens.

I think we can trace how that makes a difference in my life that would impact the likelihood that thirty years from now I'll be a famous writer. And will impact other people.

2) On the other hand, me getting up to get an apple? Probably won't. The difference is so small as to be unable to stir a ripple - so that ripple won't impact anyone, including me.

So I suppose the point of this is that while I think changes to Judea would have to happen to have changes to Jesus, changes to Judea happening as a consequence of something where the POD is a change to Greek philosophy is not all that far fetched if we explore how people do different things and how different people do things as a result - Socrates being forgotten naturally means certain things have happened, Athens being more successful means certain things have happened, and equally importantly, both things mean that certain things haven't happened. The combination of what has and hasn't happened of the infinity minus one (as in, not technically infinite but so broad as to be impossible to list) possibilities will be increasingly different as Sophistry Forever (the timeline we're talking about in this thread) moves on.

But in say, the Americas (which are called something different almost certainly)? They won't notice the difference for a long time.


*: A Short History of Dummies is my sarcastic term for OTL, as one of the possible timelines that branched off from 4000 BC (when Civilization - the game, that is - starts). :D Other timelines are too numerous to keep track of, but we happen to be living in the world where A Short History of Dummies took place, and everything else is "alternate".

Well, again, I'd argue that for a decent while after the POD you're unlikely to see the exact person who was born IOTL, you're pretty damn likely to see a person who is a reasonably close duplicate--people tend to overestimate the difference between sperm. Add in the importance of enviroment, which may very well be about the same, and BINGO--Alciabiades A and Alciabiades B are pretty much the same magnificent bastard, reacting to different events. The idea is, even if an area is left initially largely unchanged by the POD there are small subtle differences between it and OTL even now that will gradually build up. So the Americas might be almost exactly the same ten, twenty--maybe even a hundred years--however in several hundred years, you're likely to see a very different place. (Well, very different in people, at least. How different in culture depends on what those people do...)

With that stated--I rather agree that Judea is far more linked to Greece than people tend to realize.
 
Well, again, I'd argue that for a decent while after the POD you're unlikely to see the exact person who was born IOTL, you're pretty damn likely to see a person who is a reasonably close duplicate--people tend to overestimate the difference between sperm. Add in the importance of enviroment, which may very well be about the same, and BINGO--Alciabiades A and Alciabiades B are pretty much the same magnificent bastard, reacting to different events. The idea is, even if an area is left initially largely unchanged by the POD there are small subtle differences between it and OTL even now that will gradually build up. So the Americas might be almost exactly the same ten, twenty--maybe even a hundred years--however in several hundred years, you're likely to see a very different place. (Well, very different in people, at least. How different in culture depends on what those people do...)

With that stated--I rather agree that Judea is far more linked to Greece than people tend to realize.

How much of a difference is there between Alciabiades A whose hair is (I'm making up numbers) 5.38 inches long and Alciabiades B whose hair is 5.42 inches long? I mean, does that really count as "different" in the sense of say, Henry IX vs. Elizabeth I?

As for the Americas:
Sure, eventually the differences will be something that will stir things differently - but let's take my timeline.

Up until the 1240s (the proper POD is in 1166, but for purposes of world events, its 1183), the difference between events in (east) Asia in The Eagle of the Bosporus and A Short History of Dummies is nonexistent.

After the 1240s, the Mongols being changed by events means events that unfolded in A Short History of Dummies don't and the events that unfold as a consequence of events in The Eagle of the Bosporus do - which will impact Japan in less than two generations.

On the other hand, in neither timeline has anyone done anything differently towards the Americas in any way shape or form.

So how will any minute changes occur IN the Americas?
 

Alkahest

Banned
I don't know. The more i think about it, the more impossible it seems.

(It being the Athenian/Greek empire)

I try to imagine how it would look like and it just doesn't come together. Idk if it's my OTL bias, or that it wasn't suited to sustained expansion.

Colonies - more than they did IOTL. Hmm, i think it won't work. Too few Athenians, and its politial system is not suitable for large number of them.

Outright conquest... ok, let's gloss over the relatively small army. What would they do? They would either destroy the inhabitants (sell into slavery) and we have above situation, or make it a client, or? And somehow i think it wouldn't last.

Why it doesn't seem to last no matter what? Maybe it's the thing that no Greek city was able to achieve dominance because others tended to band together against hegemon and no one had enough resources anyway (even though Athens were so large)?

But perhaps destruction of Sparta would allow Athens to somehow overcome this? DUnno. Somehow Rome did it, despite similar beginnings, and i don't think it's the political system...

Anyway, i tried to find analogy and there comes Carthago. It's model of expansion seems more suited to Athens, somehow (granted, my knowledge about Carthago is lacking, but...).

Something more of an ally/client that outright annexation as in Roman case.
Heh, thanks for thinking about my unrealistic scenarios! But yeah, I agree, Athens creating a proper empire is pretty far-fetched, at least in a world where Sparta hasn't been utterly defeated. Crushing everyone's favorite macho men seems to be step one if I'm going to go through with that idea.
Also, why do you want Athenian empire? OTL is basically Greek cultural wank anyway, so tell me again what it is supposed to change?
It's basically me being lazy, to he honest. If I tweak Athenian politics and culture to where I want it, I don't want the first wannabe empire builder to visit the neighborhood to tear Athenian thought down like a house of cards in favor of some boring, unstable monarchy. So I either want Athens to be a strong power in itself or to let it be absorbed by an empire which can also absorb Athenian ideals and continue the intellectual work that begun in Athens.

I also have this vague idea that a true empire would fit better with an oligarchy than a democracy, which would allow me to construct an interesting new oligarchic system of governance based on Athenian political thought. But I might be completely wrong.
Ok. Let me add some remarks regarding your post. I'm not sure why i think Greeks would be hard to get democracy out of their heads. Perhaps because it was THE conflict in Greece (as much as Rome was about patricians vs. plebeians, IOW optimates vs. populars)
I know Athens wasn't the only place with something similar to a democracy, but wasn't other forms of government far more common in Greece? I don't see why it would be so hard for Athens to not have a democracy.
Mind you, i have no idea if foreigners cared about the right to vote. But perhaps these foreigners were citizens of other poleis, or subjects of some kingdom, and anyway the distances involved were rather smaller. So in fact the situation isn't directly comparable, as they were, well, foreigers. Suffrage was about actual inhabitants of countires (as far as i know, foreigners still don't have suffrage, except in EU on municipial level, and thats only for the Federation, uh, i mean EU, member states)
There's a big difference between a "foreigner" who was just staying for a few months and a "foreigner" who was born and raised in Athens but happened to have a parent born outside Athens.
I'm not sure what how do you envision that alliance. IIRC, Athens were at times allied and at times at war with Macedonia. Mind you, Greek politics were extremely volatile, despite having some constants (like Spartan-Athenian or Argolidian-Spartan or Athenian-Aeginetian or Corinthian-Athenian rivalries...). I mean, i don't know any other time and place that was such clusterfuck. Anyway, before Phillip Macedonia was sort of barbaric state, and after him Athens were going to be the junior partner, which they wouldn't accept given their hellenic pride.
Goddamn Athenians. No matter how I try to help them, they somehow manage to doom themselves. Okay, new POD: The Assyrians conquer all of Greece in the 9th century BC, make bloody heaps out of snooty Greek heads and create a never-ending reign of terror for the glory of Ashur where any Athenian who says anything philosophical has his tongue cut out and thrown to the dogs.

Now if you'll excuse me, I'll be in my bunk with an Assyro-wank.
 
Last edited:
Top