History and Counterfactual speculations discussions

[ChainLegacy]

Originally Posted by erneiz_hyde

Another Roman idea that I find interesting is if Constantine never elevated Christianity's status to be Rome's official religion. Has this been done before? I'd like to read a TL like this once.

Or if Maxentius had won the civil war and defeated Constantine with his newly adopted Christian emblems. Christianity was rising without Constantine, but obviously he is the one who truly cemented its trajectory in history.

IF Christianity were to survive long term without Constantine's help, many aspects of it would be different.... No Council of Nicaea to unite Christianity into a more hierarchical, organized system. Perhaps no papacy, no Rome as the center of Chistendom, etc?

It could be said that Constantine is one of those rare figures who, as a single person, may have altered the course of history... There's a chance Christianity still rises to prominence, but I think its acceptance by a later emperor afterwards would be a prerequisite for it to climb to the heights it did in our true history. Without Christianity, the whole of European history is changed completely.

[Ridwan]

Rather then Rome, I have weaker spot for other great potentials that Rome had destroyed, such as Qart-Hadast (Carthage) or Gaul. Gaul, in particular, was just about to evolve into urbanized society on par with Greece and Italy when Rome conquered it, which evidences didn't escape the notice of Julius Caesar himself. Galian kingdom of Arvenii had the best chance to unite at least most of France into a single Gaulish Empire.

[NoemiChan]

Originally Posted by Ridwan

Rather then Rome, I have weaker spot for other great potentials that Rome had destroyed, such as Qart-Hadast (Carthage) or Gaul. Gaul, in particular, was just about to evolve into urbanized society on par with Greece and Italy when Rome conquered it, which evidences didn't escape the notice of Julius Caesar himself. Galian kingdom of Arvenii had the best chance to unite at least most of France into a single Gaulish Empire.

Actually, Vercingetorix almost did succeed in uniting numerous Gallic tribes under his banner against Caesar during the Gallic wars. Too bad he was defeated at Alesia.

[Sumeragi]

Book containing every major treaty concerning Manchuria from 1895 to 1920

[Ridwan]

Originally Posted by Ridwan

I'm looking to formulate an "evil ideology" in the place of OTL fascism for my Ottoman TL and a proper name for it. Since it will emerge as a response to not only radical marxism, but also the resurgence of Islamic Ottoman power, will it turn out to be something like Clash-of-civilizations/Defense-of-Europe mentality developing into a coherent ideological force ?

The core tenets of this "Eurofascist" ideology :

> Espouses a united front of European nations against the forces of Marxism and non-European cultures, especially that of Islamic world, with the final goal to restore European supremacy over the globe and for indefinitely.
> "Interlocking" integration into a unified amalgam body of European nation-states that hold "equal but different" roles in the said body.
> Single European conscience superseding that of individual ethnic-national identities, and utilization of everything to enforce it, such as promoting Greco-Roman heritage and Indo-European race over ethnic-national primordialism. Strictly anti-Islamic and vehemently opposes Ottoman claim to membership of European community.
> "Liberation of European peoples still under the yoke of anti-European forces", such as France (which has gone red), Balkan Christians under muslim Ottoman rule, and Eastern Europeans also under Red yoke.
> Conciliation and cooperation between not only socio-economic classes but also opposite socio-cultural spectrums, subcultures and orientation, that are regarded as integral part of European civilization, such as between conservative Christianity and progressive secularism, between romanticism of the past and avant-garde futurism, and even between traditional and liberal moralities.
> Anti economic and political liberalism, seen as detrimental towards European strength and solidarity.

People of undecided European-ness :
1) British Empire (largest European colonial empire in the world, but with large non-European subjects to placate and an anti-continental tendency)
2) USA (Europe-descended nation which struggles domestically to uphold white primacy, yet an unruly individualistic country with deep partnership with non-western countries such as OE, China and Japan)
3) Russia (Part of Slavdom that traditionally adheres to a brand of christianity of questionable European-ness, and with history of being reactionary big bad as well as of intimidating size that concerns some elements within the movement to liberate and incorporate into European Union)

[ChainLegacy]

Originally Posted by NoemiChan

Actually, Vercingetorix almost did succeed in uniting numerous Gallic tribes under his banner against Caesar during the Gallic wars. Too bad he was defeated at Alesia.

Vercingetorix was a member of the Arverni tribe Ridwan mentioned. For a while, it looked like he would defeat Caesar, too... Caesar's god mode siege tactics and disciplined fortification building won him the day (though even Alesia could have been won by the Gauls had they not fled during their final attempt to break through Caesar's fortifications).

It can be argued that if Rome did not conquer the Gauls, Rome itself could very well have been a later target of a unified Gaulish kingdom. At its peak, Gaul held more wealth than any other part of Europe under Rome. Without Gaul, Rome could not rise to the level of power it did during the early years of the Empire. There would be no Roman Britain, either. I'd assume the whole of Britain would remain quite similar to the culture and society of the Pictish tribes without Roman influence. Furthering the ripple affect, Ireland would never be turned to Christianity, either, and would probably develop in an entirely different fashion.

[LeoXiao]

Originally Posted by Ridwan

The core tenets of this "Eurofascist" ideology :

<snip>

What does it think of monarchy, whether constitutional or absolute?

[Ridwan]

Originally Posted by LeoXiao

What does it think of monarchy, whether constitutional or absolute?

Since it is against liberal democracy, they'll oust a monarch supportive of liberal democracy but willing to install one that will do otherwise.

[LeoXiao]

Originally Posted by Ridwan

Nothing in particular. What they would consider problem is liberal democracy, and they'll might oust a monarch supportive of liberal democracy but also willing to install one that will do otherwise.

I don't know much about Napoleon, but it would be interesting to have a 20th-century military strongman similar to him take the throne as a monarch or the main force behind a monarch and try to unite Europe.

[Ridwan]

Originally Posted by LeoXiao

I don't know much about Napoleon, but it would be interesting to have a 20th-century military strongman similar to him take the throne as a monarch or the main force behind a monarch and try to unite Europe.

The ideology doesn't espouses caesarism. They don't mind an autocrat on national level supporting their cause but at the highest level of command, it's a council of leading ideologues, leaders of member countries, and other important figures, with varying levels of actual say in the running of things.

[ChainLegacy]

Originally Posted by LeoXiao

I don't know much about Napoleon, but it would be interesting to have a 20th-century military strongman similar to him take the throne as a monarch or the main force behind a monarch and try to unite Europe.

If you get the chance, I highly recommend the PBS documentary series on Napoleon as a really great, light introduction to his life. He was a truly fascinating figure.

[LeoXiao]

A few weeks ago I was pleased to find the recently-published book, <Forgotten Ally>, which is about the 2nd Sino-Japanese War, appear in my school's library, and have begun reading it. It is very easy to read compared to many history books, mostly because the author has simplified a lot of the information, but for someone like me who isn't so well-versed on many of the campaigns, figures, and dynamics of the SSJW, it is quite useful for general orientation and grounding. I think that it is slightly too rosy about the Communists, but this would be a minor complaint. I'm up to about mid-1941 and so far I highly recommend it.

[Sumeragi]

I've been wondering: What kind of small arms should I give Korai? Any suggestions?

[Fireminer]

Depend on their tresuary status.

[Ithekro]

What year, who's producing, and who'd be willing to sell for what they could likely afford?

[Ridwan]

Too bad I don't know much about WW2 weaponry, but perhaps since you're going for relation with Germany, Korai can use some of German model in addition to mainly Japanese model.

And surely Korai will be bigger on tanks then Japan, yes ?

Also, do you happen to fancy socio-cultural development ? I'd be interested to see how differ Korai culture and society will be fromOTL Korea and how it will might possibly influence her Japanese patron.

[Sumeragi]

I need to remember that there are always "new" people here.

Okay, basic location is Korea + Manchuria, era is from 1909~1946, this country manages to be friendly with Poland from 1920 to late 1930's, with US from 1911 to 1943, and with Germany/Czech from 1919 to the end of the period. It manages to achieve industrial capacity per capita similar to the US starting from the late 1930's, and also has access to all the oil it needs.

BTW, restrict the discussion to small arms, since I already have ideas for almost everything else.

[Ithekro]

Quality or quantity? Metric or non-metric? American or European?

Not too likely to have a quality Asian small arms manufacturer...that isn't Japan, that early on. Later they might tool up and make their own, but they will still likely be based on someone elses models and styles for a decade or two until they get their own style.

And what arms would they had had access to prior to 1909? Legacy weaponry sometimes helps future sales since those in the military will already know said weapons. It could also hinder, if the nation is not supported by whoever made those weapons.

Both American and European weapons have their own supporters and detractors in the late 19th century.

[Ridwan]

Oh look, she got banned again :/ Right before I'm about to pester her for alternate cultural development in her TL

[Ithekro]

List of small arms manufacturers around 1900:

Americas:

Canada:

Savage Arms

Chile:

FAMAE

United States of America:

Colt's Manufacturing Company

E. Remington and Sons (Remington Arms)

H & R Firearms

Hopkins & Allen

Ithaca Gun Company

Iver Johnson

Marlin Firearms

Smith & Wesson

Springfield Armory

Stevens Arms

Winchester Repeating Arms Company

---------------------------------------
Asia:

China:

Hanyang Arsenal

India (via British Empire):

Ishapore Arsenal
Ordnance Factories Board

Japan:
Howa
Koishikawa arsenal
Miroku Corp.

--------------------------------
Europe:

Austria:

Steyr Mannlicher

Belgium:

FN Herstal

France:

Verney-Carron

Germany:

J. G. Anschütz

Deutsche Waffen und Munitionsfabriken

Heym AG

Krupp

Mauser

Sauer & Sohn

Schweizerische Industrie Gesellschaft

Walther arms

Greece:

Pyrkal

Italy:

Beretta

Russia:

Izhevsk Machinebuilding Plant

Tula Arsenal

Serbia:

Zastava Arms

Sweden:

Carl Gustafs Stads Gevärsfaktori

Husqvarna Vapenfabriks Aktiebolag

Switzerland:

Waffenfabrik Bern

United Kingdom:

Birmingham Small Arms Company

Boss & Co.

London Small Arms Co. Ltd

Royal Small Arms Factory

Webley & Scott