Alt History ideas, rec and general discussion thread
- Thread starter Teen Spirit
- Start date
- Discussion
Found this the other day and I figured it would be good to share here.
https://www.deviantart.com/redroserising/art/Strange-Age-A-Pulppunk-World-946829372
- Location
- Illinois
The author posted this in the alternate history map thread too!Found this the other day and I figured it would be good to share here.
https://www.deviantart.com/redroserising/art/Strange-Age-A-Pulppunk-World-946829372
Communism? Not in my Texas!Looks like fun, but I'm just not seeing a Communist Texas.
Personally I've always wanted to do a Punk Progression timeline. Where certain technologies are developed decades ahead of OTL and explore the consequences. As things progress from one punk era to another, seeing the divergences in technology. Thanks to people building off of what came before.
Nothing too radical like robots and AI in the Victorian Era but steamcars, AC and dirigibles with plywood frames are definitely there.
Comrade Future
Man from Zeerust
- Location
- USSR
- Pronouns
- He/His/Him
I honestly saw a lot of worlds in the "retro" style.
I've posted an earlier version of this no-islam scenario upthread somewhere. It was a bit cringe. Here's a revised version of the general scenario up through around 740. How plausible is it?
Arab Empire
- No Islam. Maybe Muhammad didn't exist, or maybe he stayed in Ethiopia, or maybe he was just less successful.
- The Quraysh still manage to unite the Hedjaz - they seem to have been the main power following the Fiqar Wars, and also produced a lot of good generals. I would assume that, without Muhammad, they would remain under the Banū Makhzūm, especially given that they would still have Khālid ibn al-Walīd.
- After unifying the Hedjaz, the Makhzūmid Empire is able to defeat the Ghassānids and the tribes of the Lakhm, and is able to follow that up with conquests of Syria, Egypt, and the Khwarwaran. Considering how exhausted Rome and Persia were following the 602-628 Perso-Roman War and 628-632 succession crisis in Persia and the collapse of the Banū Lakhm and the dissatisfaction of Syria and Egypts' Oriental Orthodox populations with Roman rule, this seems fairly reasonable. I am unsure as to whether it would exert power over southern Arabia - I think the Najd, Maxan, and Oman would be plausible avenues for expansion, but likely not Yemen.
- The Makhzūmid Empire would most likely have Oriental Orthodoxy as its primary religion, but would also be religiously tolerant, similarly to the early Caliphate.
- It would probably also continue to be more west-facing and Hellenised, like the Rāshidun Caliphate, rather than east-facing and Persian, like the Umayyads, as it would lack most of Persia. The language of administration would probably still be Arabic.
- Does it make sense for 'Amr ibn al-'Ās to still become governor of Egypt? If so, the Banū Sahm would become the primary power in Egypt, and would probably eventually form an independent kingdom in Egypt.
- The Sassanid Empire continues to rot, but the Zagros make for an excellent natural barrier and I doubt that an Arab empire without as strong a religious motivation would actually continue conquests past the Zagros. Rome would probably take over Persian Armenia at some point in the 600s, as it would be a softer target than Arab-held Syria or Egypt.
- The Roman Empire's fate is more unclear. Most notably, does some equivalent to the Twenty Years' Anarchy occur?
Neo-Göktürk Persia
- Qapaghan Qaghan, the second Neo-Göktürk Qaghan, sets his sights on conquering Persia. Given that he was an opportunist and was willing to attempt long-duration longshot strategies (like his plan to install one of his daughters as ruler of China via a royal marriage to one of Wǔ Zétiān's grandsons), I suspect that he would seize on the opportunity of a weakened Persia. (The entirety of Central Asia being in the way probably wouldn't have caused much of an issue - Neo-Göktürk forces IOTL raided as far as the Amu Darya, and the Táng dynasty was able to conquer the area with less forces than Qapaghan had at his disposal.)
- I don't think the Sassanid Empire would be able to put up much of a fight once the Göktürk Empire does arrive - the Parthian lords probably would just roll over and switch sides the first time they got defeated.
- With the Sassanid Empire already largely a failed state, I suspect that Qapaghan would attempt to rebuild the Persian bureaucracy along Chinese lines and bring in Chinese advisors.
- Qapaghan Qaghan would be in a better apparent position to make demands of Wǔ Zétiān in 698, given that being a successful conqueror of Persia would make him a much greater apparent threat, although his forces would probably be overextended in practice. His proposal to marry one of his daughters to one of Wǔ Zétiān's grandsons would probably go through ITTL - if so, the most likely options would be Emperor Ruìzōng's third son Lǐ Lōngjī, or his fourth son, Lǐ Fàn. I would suspect the former, as the latter could open a chance of an alliance between the Göktürk and the Cuī clan. Emperor Xuànzōng of Táng's reign is butterflied.
- The eventual outcome of the Lǐ-Sūn rebellion is unclear - I would suspect that it is still defeated, though the exact circumstances may be different.
- However, I don't think that the Göktürk Empire would remain unified after Qapaghan's death, given the severe infighting of the 710s IOTL. I would suspect a four-way division between Persia, Transoxiana, the Gokturk heartland in OTL Mongolia, and the Kipchak areas in OTL Kazakhstan. I will refer to these as the Khanate of Persia, the Khanate of Transoxiana, the Orkhon Khanate, and the Sirkhanate, respectively. I would suspect that the Khanate of Persia would be under Inäl Qaghan, the Sirkhanate would be under Kül Tegin, the Khanate of Transoxiana would be under Eltemish Yabghu, and the Orkhon Khanate would be under Bilgä Qaghan, although these are not certainties - it would be hilarious if Lǐ Lōngjī ends up in charge somewhere else. All of them would likely become Táng vassals at some point, and their royal families would likely continue to intermarry with Chinese nobles.
- The ruling family of the Khanate of Persia would likely convert to either Buddhism or Zoroastrianism. In order to not step on Practical Lobster's shoes, I would not have them end up Buddhist; Zoroastrianism influenced by steppe religions and Daoism seems most plausible, then.
China
- With Lǐ Lōngjī out of the picture, Lǐ Lìngyuè/Princess Tàipíng wins the power struggles following Wǔ Zétiān's removal and death, and becomes Emperor succeeding Ruìzōng. It's hard to figure her character out, given the extent to which she was slandered after her death IOTL. Her allies were slandered too, but it is clear from surviving sources and from reading between the lines that four out of five of her key allies, Cuī Shí, Cén Xī, Wèi Zhīgǔ, and Lù Xiàngxiān, were highly competent and known for moral uprightness during their lifetimes, which is definitely a good sign. Additionally, it is likely that Zhāng Yuè and Guō Yuānzhèn, at least, would have been retained as chancellors, and that Shàngguān Wǎn'ér would have survived without Lǐ Lōngjī's involvement
- The capital would be moved to Luòyáng for similar reasons to IOTL.
- Assuming Kül Tegin still dies suddenly in 731 without an heir, there would most likely be a succession crisis in the Sirkhanate, and an invasion by the Transoxiana Khanate (which would likely be under Bilgä Ishbara Tamghan). Chinese intervention here would be likely.
- Another question is whether Qutlugh Säbäg Qaghatun's attempt to seize power in a similar method to Wǔ Zétiān after Bilgä Qaghan's death has a higher chance of success in this timeline, as it is likely that man dissatisfied clan would have ended up in Persia, likely including the Yaglaqar Uyghurs.
- Who would Li Linyue's successor have been? She had four sons. Little is recorded about them other than Xuē Chóngjiǎn, who was apparently her least favourite. I don't have much faith in their abilities, as they were all the products of cousin marriages. Whichever of them became emperor would probably be largely under the thumb of his wife, who would most likely be a member of the Cén clan or Zhāng clan.
- The circumstances that led to the Ān Lùshān rebellion IOTL were something of a perfect storm of stupidity, and almost certainly no similar event would occur in this timeline.
Europe and Africa
- I am unsure as to whether or not the Twenty Years' Anarchy or some equivalent would still occur. The catastrophic loss of Syria and Egypt and the overrunning of Balkans by Slavs and Bulgars would still occur, as would the resulting losses of prestige. Averting the Twenty Years' Anarchy would likely result in the Romans continuing to at least nominally control central Italy and Sardinia and doing better against the Bulgars, but if the Twenty Years' Anarchy still happens, the outcome might be even worse for the Romans, as a Christian Arab empire would be harder to rally against.
- The Arabs would likely not be successful in conquering the Maghreb in a real way, especially as by the 700s, there would likely be little in the way of a unifying power behind them, and it is entirely possible that Egypt would be acting essentially independently. How plausible would an independent Berber kingdom of Africa under Dihya/Kahina be?
- Axum would likely retain control of the Yemeni coast into the 700s.
- The Franks would probably still rise to predominance in Europe under the Carolingians. I think that the effect of the Battle of Tours has been massively overstated, and I am unsure whether it actually happened.
- I don't know much about Visigothic Iberia. It seems to have been quite militarily weak, but I would expect it to be able to survive at least until the time of Charlemagne (assuming he still exists).
Arab Empire
- No Islam. Maybe Muhammad didn't exist, or maybe he stayed in Ethiopia, or maybe he was just less successful.
- The Quraysh still manage to unite the Hedjaz - they seem to have been the main power following the Fiqar Wars, and also produced a lot of good generals. I would assume that, without Muhammad, they would remain under the Banū Makhzūm, especially given that they would still have Khālid ibn al-Walīd.
- After unifying the Hedjaz, the Makhzūmid Empire is able to defeat the Ghassānids and the tribes of the Lakhm, and is able to follow that up with conquests of Syria, Egypt, and the Khwarwaran. Considering how exhausted Rome and Persia were following the 602-628 Perso-Roman War and 628-632 succession crisis in Persia and the collapse of the Banū Lakhm and the dissatisfaction of Syria and Egypts' Oriental Orthodox populations with Roman rule, this seems fairly reasonable. I am unsure as to whether it would exert power over southern Arabia - I think the Najd, Maxan, and Oman would be plausible avenues for expansion, but likely not Yemen.
- The Makhzūmid Empire would most likely have Oriental Orthodoxy as its primary religion, but would also be religiously tolerant, similarly to the early Caliphate.
- It would probably also continue to be more west-facing and Hellenised, like the Rāshidun Caliphate, rather than east-facing and Persian, like the Umayyads, as it would lack most of Persia. The language of administration would probably still be Arabic.
- Does it make sense for 'Amr ibn al-'Ās to still become governor of Egypt? If so, the Banū Sahm would become the primary power in Egypt, and would probably eventually form an independent kingdom in Egypt.
- The Sassanid Empire continues to rot, but the Zagros make for an excellent natural barrier and I doubt that an Arab empire without as strong a religious motivation would actually continue conquests past the Zagros. Rome would probably take over Persian Armenia at some point in the 600s, as it would be a softer target than Arab-held Syria or Egypt.
- The Roman Empire's fate is more unclear. Most notably, does some equivalent to the Twenty Years' Anarchy occur?
Neo-Göktürk Persia
- Qapaghan Qaghan, the second Neo-Göktürk Qaghan, sets his sights on conquering Persia. Given that he was an opportunist and was willing to attempt long-duration longshot strategies (like his plan to install one of his daughters as ruler of China via a royal marriage to one of Wǔ Zétiān's grandsons), I suspect that he would seize on the opportunity of a weakened Persia. (The entirety of Central Asia being in the way probably wouldn't have caused much of an issue - Neo-Göktürk forces IOTL raided as far as the Amu Darya, and the Táng dynasty was able to conquer the area with less forces than Qapaghan had at his disposal.)
- I don't think the Sassanid Empire would be able to put up much of a fight once the Göktürk Empire does arrive - the Parthian lords probably would just roll over and switch sides the first time they got defeated.
- With the Sassanid Empire already largely a failed state, I suspect that Qapaghan would attempt to rebuild the Persian bureaucracy along Chinese lines and bring in Chinese advisors.
- Qapaghan Qaghan would be in a better apparent position to make demands of Wǔ Zétiān in 698, given that being a successful conqueror of Persia would make him a much greater apparent threat, although his forces would probably be overextended in practice. His proposal to marry one of his daughters to one of Wǔ Zétiān's grandsons would probably go through ITTL - if so, the most likely options would be Emperor Ruìzōng's third son Lǐ Lōngjī, or his fourth son, Lǐ Fàn. I would suspect the former, as the latter could open a chance of an alliance between the Göktürk and the Cuī clan. Emperor Xuànzōng of Táng's reign is butterflied.
- The eventual outcome of the Lǐ-Sūn rebellion is unclear - I would suspect that it is still defeated, though the exact circumstances may be different.
- However, I don't think that the Göktürk Empire would remain unified after Qapaghan's death, given the severe infighting of the 710s IOTL. I would suspect a four-way division between Persia, Transoxiana, the Gokturk heartland in OTL Mongolia, and the Kipchak areas in OTL Kazakhstan. I will refer to these as the Khanate of Persia, the Khanate of Transoxiana, the Orkhon Khanate, and the Sirkhanate, respectively. I would suspect that the Khanate of Persia would be under Inäl Qaghan, the Sirkhanate would be under Kül Tegin, the Khanate of Transoxiana would be under Eltemish Yabghu, and the Orkhon Khanate would be under Bilgä Qaghan, although these are not certainties - it would be hilarious if Lǐ Lōngjī ends up in charge somewhere else. All of them would likely become Táng vassals at some point, and their royal families would likely continue to intermarry with Chinese nobles.
- The ruling family of the Khanate of Persia would likely convert to either Buddhism or Zoroastrianism. In order to not step on Practical Lobster's shoes, I would not have them end up Buddhist; Zoroastrianism influenced by steppe religions and Daoism seems most plausible, then.
China
- With Lǐ Lōngjī out of the picture, Lǐ Lìngyuè/Princess Tàipíng wins the power struggles following Wǔ Zétiān's removal and death, and becomes Emperor succeeding Ruìzōng. It's hard to figure her character out, given the extent to which she was slandered after her death IOTL. Her allies were slandered too, but it is clear from surviving sources and from reading between the lines that four out of five of her key allies, Cuī Shí, Cén Xī, Wèi Zhīgǔ, and Lù Xiàngxiān, were highly competent and known for moral uprightness during their lifetimes, which is definitely a good sign. Additionally, it is likely that Zhāng Yuè and Guō Yuānzhèn, at least, would have been retained as chancellors, and that Shàngguān Wǎn'ér would have survived without Lǐ Lōngjī's involvement
- The capital would be moved to Luòyáng for similar reasons to IOTL.
- Assuming Kül Tegin still dies suddenly in 731 without an heir, there would most likely be a succession crisis in the Sirkhanate, and an invasion by the Transoxiana Khanate (which would likely be under Bilgä Ishbara Tamghan). Chinese intervention here would be likely.
- Another question is whether Qutlugh Säbäg Qaghatun's attempt to seize power in a similar method to Wǔ Zétiān after Bilgä Qaghan's death has a higher chance of success in this timeline, as it is likely that man dissatisfied clan would have ended up in Persia, likely including the Yaglaqar Uyghurs.
- Who would Li Linyue's successor have been? She had four sons. Little is recorded about them other than Xuē Chóngjiǎn, who was apparently her least favourite. I don't have much faith in their abilities, as they were all the products of cousin marriages. Whichever of them became emperor would probably be largely under the thumb of his wife, who would most likely be a member of the Cén clan or Zhāng clan.
- The circumstances that led to the Ān Lùshān rebellion IOTL were something of a perfect storm of stupidity, and almost certainly no similar event would occur in this timeline.
Europe and Africa
- I am unsure as to whether or not the Twenty Years' Anarchy or some equivalent would still occur. The catastrophic loss of Syria and Egypt and the overrunning of Balkans by Slavs and Bulgars would still occur, as would the resulting losses of prestige. Averting the Twenty Years' Anarchy would likely result in the Romans continuing to at least nominally control central Italy and Sardinia and doing better against the Bulgars, but if the Twenty Years' Anarchy still happens, the outcome might be even worse for the Romans, as a Christian Arab empire would be harder to rally against.
- The Arabs would likely not be successful in conquering the Maghreb in a real way, especially as by the 700s, there would likely be little in the way of a unifying power behind them, and it is entirely possible that Egypt would be acting essentially independently. How plausible would an independent Berber kingdom of Africa under Dihya/Kahina be?
- Axum would likely retain control of the Yemeni coast into the 700s.
- The Franks would probably still rise to predominance in Europe under the Carolingians. I think that the effect of the Battle of Tours has been massively overstated, and I am unsure whether it actually happened.
- I don't know much about Visigothic Iberia. It seems to have been quite militarily weak, but I would expect it to be able to survive at least until the time of Charlemagne (assuming he still exists).
- Location
- The Old Dominion
We have multiple period sources for the battle, so the battle of Tours most likely happened.
Of course the thing with the battle was that the Umayyad forces weren't expecting the Franks to come to the aid of Aquitaine as they had previously been fighting them which allowed to the franks to sneak up and to pick the battleground that would favor their infantry by forcing the Umayyad forces to charge up hill and dodge around trees to get at them.
Beyond that the southwestern Gaul of what had been the Visigothic ruled province of Septimania had already been already under Moorish rule so if Aquitaine which had been weakened by defeats had fallen that admittedly might well have put the Umayyads in control of all of southern Gual west of Province which might or might not have been a problem for the Franks.
Of course, no Muslim conquest of the Visigothic kingdom of Hispania would pretty much have meant not events that might have led to the battle of Tours in the first place.
Of course the thing with the battle was that the Umayyad forces weren't expecting the Franks to come to the aid of Aquitaine as they had previously been fighting them which allowed to the franks to sneak up and to pick the battleground that would favor their infantry by forcing the Umayyad forces to charge up hill and dodge around trees to get at them.
Beyond that the southwestern Gaul of what had been the Visigothic ruled province of Septimania had already been already under Moorish rule so if Aquitaine which had been weakened by defeats had fallen that admittedly might well have put the Umayyads in control of all of southern Gual west of Province which might or might not have been a problem for the Franks.
Of course, no Muslim conquest of the Visigothic kingdom of Hispania would pretty much have meant not events that might have led to the battle of Tours in the first place.
Last edited:
Comrade Future
Man from Zeerust
- Location
- USSR
- Pronouns
- He/His/Him
Only now there are suspicions that it was at this moment that the Caliphate faced the limits of its growth.
Only now a strong enough Romea wants to return these lands. Considering how important Egypt is. In addition, there is a version that the demarcation of Eastern Orthodoxy and Greek Orthodoxy occurred after the Islamic conquest.
OTL - the success of the Turks in the Middle East is largely the result of Arab domination. The Arabs began to recruit from the Turkic army, as they were more interested in the roles of merchants and administrators. In Iranshah, the situation is different - the aristocracy is a class of professional warriors, and they see nothing more than bandits who need to be restrained (although with their help persians can weaken the Romans).
There are studies showing that the "Persian cycles" generally coincide with the climatic cycles - where a single state appears on the territory of Iran for the optimum period, while the cooling period turns into the collapse of the state. There are studies showing that the "Persian cycles" generally coincide with the climatic cycles - where a single state appears on the territory of Iran for the optimum period, while the cooling period turns into the collapse of the state. So I would rather expect that the Sassanid Empire would still collapse, but Turan would remain a zone of direct Turkic control. Later, the Middle Eastern empire will be reborn - but already as a state with a Turkic dynasty at the head. And I would expect the dynasty to be Nestorian - their influence was very strong in Central Asia.
North Africa is more likely to be Latin in the wealthy regions - perhaps with more Barbary influence on the periphery.
In fact, Himyar was conquered by the Persians in 578.
Alas, the Arab invasion was only the final nail in the coffin. The state has already collapsed.
I doubt Rome would have a strong chance of regaining it, even without a Twenty Years' Anarchy, considering that they had first lost it for most of the duration of the 602-628 Roman-Sassanid War. Oriental Orthodoxy (as in the Coptic Orthodox Church, Solomonic Tewahedo Orthodox Church, Syraic Orthodox Church, and Armenian Apostolic Church) diverged at the Council of Chalcedon in 451 AD.
I do not exactly understand what is meant here?
The situation ITTL would not be like the establishment of Turkic states in Iran in our world, but instead like the establishment of Mongol rule in Persia, with the Parthians taking a roughly similar role to what the Turks had in the OTL Mongol conquest. The collapse of the Persian state occured before the Arab conquests in our world, with the departure of the Parthians from confederacy with the Sassanids in the 620s. Another thing that should be noticed is that the Göktürks were substantially different from the western Turks of their time or the Turks of later times; Central Asia was recently settled territory with large Sogdian and possibly Scythian populations remaining, while the centres of powerful Turkic states were in and around the periphery of China; China itself was ruled by Särpi Tatars. Central Asia is under direct Turkic control ITTL: the Sirkhanate, the Kangli Khanate, the Eltemish Ulush/Khanate of Transoxiana, and the Inäl Ulush/Khanate of Persia are all ruled by Turkic dynasties.
An African Romance language influenced by Berber would be the main language of the state, but the dyansty would be Berber.
Had the state actually collapsed, or was it merely in a civil war at the time? The History of Byzantium podcast seems to imply the latter.
Last edited:
Comrade Future
Man from Zeerust
- Location
- USSR
- Pronouns
- He/His/Him
The doctrines diverged, but the boundaries between the followers of the two currents were much more fluid.
I meant that the Turks in the next couple of centuries will be limited to Transoxiana (with migrations to the West), while conditions in the Iranian Highlands will be unfavorable. So there will be a period of struggle of local post-Sasanian dynasties, and only by the 10th or 11th century will the conquest of Persia begin.
What's wrong with the Roman Exarch? At the very least, there will be more centralization.
I'll answer Romea's question tomorrow.
Yes, I do know that; however, Egypt seems to me to have been an exception to this: the Miaphysites and Chalcedonians there seem to have been more rigidly defined and more at each others' throats than elsewhere. This tendency would probably continue to increase under Arab rule.
I assumed that Turkic settlement in Persia ITTL would primarily be in Khurasan, Kohistan, and northern Afghanistan, which already had substantial Arghu Turkic populations. The governance of the Khanate of Persia would be similar to that of the Sassanians prior to Khosrau I, just with the Yabghus, the Dabuyids, and the remnant Sassanids in the same boat as the Parthian lords, and the Turks and Chinese taking the role of the Persians: a Turkic-Persian-Parthian confederacy replacing the Persian-Parthian confederacy which had existed earlier (as for what this term means: @Chehrazad has explained it in depth before on this forum, but I'm not sure where. Here's a (cringeworthy but AFAICT factually accurate) youtube video on it.
I imagined this establishment of a Berber kingdom as taking place within an alternate Twenty Years' Anarchy. If the large Arab invasion that lead to the area's consolidation occurred when Rome was in a stronger position, then it probably would be an exarchate instead.
Last edited:
Mingo
Son of a Hazmot
I'm writing a timeline where in the 200s BC, native Egyptians overthrow the Ptolemies and a 34th Dynasty begins, causing an Egyptian cultural renaissance and hieroglyphics being modernized to serve as an actual written language, there is still Greek influence and Serapis is still worshipped as Alexandria's patron god, albeit more kemeticized and with a lion head.
Instead of a dry timeline, I'm telling the story through a lot of different forms of media, a history textbook infographic and am working on a scene from Shakespeare about the rebellion.
The problem is, I've been writing this just for me and have no idea if anyone would find this interesting. Also, I'm unsure if I should create a dry timeline as well for the people who actually like them. Input would be appreciated.
Here's what I've done so far, I've not posted anything officially yet.
The general idea is inspired by Kevin Gold's Choice of Alexandria.
If the words in the picture are blurry, try opening it in a new tab.
Instead of a dry timeline, I'm telling the story through a lot of different forms of media, a history textbook infographic and am working on a scene from Shakespeare about the rebellion.
The problem is, I've been writing this just for me and have no idea if anyone would find this interesting. Also, I'm unsure if I should create a dry timeline as well for the people who actually like them. Input would be appreciated.
Here's what I've done so far, I've not posted anything officially yet.
The general idea is inspired by Kevin Gold's Choice of Alexandria.
If the words in the picture are blurry, try opening it in a new tab.
Last edited:
Here is my current concept for the sequence of events in Persia:
640 or so: Arab conquest of Mesopotamia
Over the 640s, the Arabs and Persians continue to fight in Khuzestan until it is conquered by Arabs.
666-668: Failed Persian attempt to reconquer Meopotamia after the death of 'Abd al-Rahman ibn Khalid
669: Assassination of Yazdegard III, collapse of Sassanid Empire
676: Tokharian Yabghus, aided by the Persia Central Command, secures largely nominal submission of Parthian lords in northern and eastern Persia/
684-685: Failed Tibetan invasion of Persia.
676-690: Tokharian Yabghus hold hegemony over Persia, but prioritise Afghanistan and India and are unable to conquer the Sassanid remnant.
686: Destruction of Kunling Protectorate opens Central Asia to Göktürk hegemony. Sogdian Turks and Central Asian Chinese incorporated into Göktürk Empire.
690-695: Göktürk invasion of Tokharestan. Arghu Turks incorporated into Göktürk Empire. Parthian lords nominally submit to the Göktürks.
700s: Arabs attempt to invade Iranian plateau. Sassanid remnant submits to the Göktürks.
Comrade Future
Man from Zeerust
- Location
- USSR
- Pronouns
- He/His/Him
Question - what did the Tibetans forget in Persia? And how did they even get there?
- Location
- The Old Dominion
Hmm, if the Sassanid Persian empire collapsed wouldn't the border of the surviving Persian remanent state would be far from the Borders of the Tibetan empire?
It would be one thing if the Tibetan empire invaded while the Sassanid empire was still stretching to the Indus but if the empire's collapsed by that point it sort of seems unlikely the remaining border even would be near enough to invade.
The Tibetans would be invading the Tokharian Yabghu-held areas of Persia (think around Khurasan), not the Sassanid rump state.
The Tibetans were heavily involved in areas around the borders of Persia at their height, and took Balkh in 708.
Last edited:
Baron Steakpuncher
Hopeful Idealist
- Location
- Australia
The Tibetan Empire was at its height around this point, and "Persia" used to extend pretty much to the Indian border for quite a few centuries.
Mazeka
You must be joking
- Location
- United States
Here's some AH fodder:
en.wikipedia.org
Summary: Military, intelligence, business, and financial officials assisted by the Americans mastermind the resignation of a leftist pro-disarmament prime minister.
The book got a sequel in 2019 and two separate adaptations. In the 1988 adaptation, the ending is changed from a clear right-wing victory in the book to an implied military takeover sent to disrupt the early election and inquiry.
(And yes, I know about Whitlam in OTL Australia.)
A Very British Coup - Wikipedia
Summary: Military, intelligence, business, and financial officials assisted by the Americans mastermind the resignation of a leftist pro-disarmament prime minister.
The book got a sequel in 2019 and two separate adaptations. In the 1988 adaptation, the ending is changed from a clear right-wing victory in the book to an implied military takeover sent to disrupt the early election and inquiry.
(And yes, I know about Whitlam in OTL Australia.)
Last edited:
In the early 1990s, Mikhail Gorbachev proposed many reforms to jumpstart the Soviet economy and save the country from dissolution. One of the last attempts was to create a New Union by creating a new treaty that would have supported equal rights for all and a multi-party democracy. This attempt failed after an attempted coup in 1991 led to all countries declaring independence.
But what if this treaty was signed? What if the proposed union exists today? Would it still be a world superpower like the old Soviet Union? Or would it be much weaker?
But what if this treaty was signed? What if the proposed union exists today? Would it still be a world superpower like the old Soviet Union? Or would it be much weaker?
Shaithan
Re-class is happiest class
- Location
- The worst part of Germany
The New Union would have to deal with a lot of underlying issues for the Union. Like the endemic corruption and the fact that the military it has is basically way above its actual means to support. Or that a powerful clique around Yeltsin in Russia has little interest in seeing the USSR survive, when they know that can reign in Russia.
If there is earnest work towards overhauling society in a way that roots out a lot of the problem that plagued Soviet society, then the New Union can probably stand as a regional power. Probably hawkishly watched by Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, the Baltics and Romania who all have reason to distrust the old overlord and who're quite likely to seek close ties to the west.
If the New Union doesn't address the multitude of issues that plagued the USSR, then it's likely that the New Union deteriorates and may well break apart anyway. How amiable that break-up is is basically anyone's guess. There's a lot of room between the Czechoslovakian divorce and the end of Yugoslavia.
The New Union might hold on to the #2 spot in the world for quite a while, but it'd definitely have to involve an understanding that the factual capabilities are better compared to France than the USA.
If there is earnest work towards overhauling society in a way that roots out a lot of the problem that plagued Soviet society, then the New Union can probably stand as a regional power. Probably hawkishly watched by Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, the Baltics and Romania who all have reason to distrust the old overlord and who're quite likely to seek close ties to the west.
If the New Union doesn't address the multitude of issues that plagued the USSR, then it's likely that the New Union deteriorates and may well break apart anyway. How amiable that break-up is is basically anyone's guess. There's a lot of room between the Czechoslovakian divorce and the end of Yugoslavia.
The New Union might hold on to the #2 spot in the world for quite a while, but it'd definitely have to involve an understanding that the factual capabilities are better compared to France than the USA.
I think the New Union Treaty would have given Gorbachev and the Supreme Soviet more time to address and attempt to solve these problems.
It could be argued that a dissolution of a country takes more precedence than corruption or economic issues.
DracoDracul
Transbian Communist
- Location
- Austin
- Pronouns
- She/They
I mean the fact that the new union was formed at all implies that Yeltsin's out of the picture and his clique isn't able to move publicly.
Comrade Future
Man from Zeerust
- Location
- USSR
- Pronouns
- He/His/Him
Only now Yeltsin is the president of the RSFSR.
Mazeka
You must be joking
- Location
- United States
Or dies from a fatal liquor-related traffic incident.