WI Europe of Three Empires

[Eurofed]

Eh, the Eotechnic (development of mechanical clockwork) was much more decentralist than the Paleotechnic (steam power). You're right about the cultural factors though. And the countervailing factors cut both ways, it is entirely possible for China to develop a permanent split, it's just a bitch to do so.

Well, I was thinking more of stuff like mobile printing, ocean-worthy naval technology, and urban trading elites, rather than steam power. I won't ever deny that it may be possible for China to develop a permanent North-South split, alongside its own main geopolitical fault line. I'm just terribly skeptical that for Imperial China, or a surviving Rome that absorbs all of Germania and Mesopotamia and avoids manorialism collapse, a permanent split into more than a couple units was ever going to happen.

 

[Aranfan]

Hmm, I won't agree or disagree with you right now.

Do you know enough about India to say if it could unite cohesively?

 

[Eurofed]

Do you know enough about India to say if it could unite cohesively?

I think the possibility definitely exists, since Indian empires repeatedly arose that united most of the continent before the British Raj. But I'm not sure of what factors Indian civilization would need to develop in order to prevent their repeated breakup (btw, India is an example of why geographic determinism is rubbish, since the Indian subcontinent has few geographic features that drive towards disunity, with the exception of the Thar desert).

As it concerns changes caused to India by the success of Rome, Muslim invasions are butterflied away, which have been a powerful element of disunity. ITTL Rome/*Byzantium does not absorb Persia, and so does not come to loom menacingly on the Indus, which may drive the Indians to unity. There is still going to be a helluva lot of trade contacts and penetration between Rome/*Byzantium and India, but I'm unsure of their net effect. As it concerns China, I'm fairly sure that in most cases a surviving Rome and Imperial China are going to be driven by ongoing cultural exchanges, trade links, and budding imperial rivalry into a millennial parallel rise into global superpower status. Theoretically the same might happen to India, if it avoids becoming a contested (and likely fragmented) buffer zone, or a Roman Raj.

 

[yourworstnightmare]

Roman wank on steroids.

 

[MerryPrankster]

Could India be conquered by a Central Asian dynasty like the Mughals?

With "Russia" blocking off the Pontic Steppe from all but the toughest horse barbarians, these guys are going to have to go somewhere.

A combined Perso-Indian empire ruled by some Hunnic king might have plausibility issues, but it certainly satisfies the Rule of Cool.

 

[Eurofed]

Roman wank on steroids.

TLs by Eric2786 and Onkel Willie (linked in OP) have been much more ambitious Romanwanks than this scenario, given that the Romasphere got a lasting split in *WRE and *ERE.

Could India be conquered by a Central Asian dynasty like the Mughals?

With "Russia" blocking off the Pontic Steppe from all but the toughest horse barbarians, these guys are going to have to go somewhere.

A combined Perso-Indian empire ruled by some Hunnic king might have plausibility issues, but it certainly satisfies the Rule of Cool.

Well a horse nomad breakout in Persia and/or India is quite possible and even likely. At this point Persia and India (if it keeps its tendency to disunity) look like the the easiest traget for nomad breakouts, at least until the Mongols take shape. There is a somewhat empty "corridor" for the nomads in southern Ukraine but it is indeed quite doubtful anything coming from the east but the Mongols could be a serious threat for *Rus, much less the *WRE or *ERE.

 

[Rex Romanum]

I wonder, where would be the capital of those empires located...?
Colonia Agrippina or Londinium for "Western" Roman Empire? (since the center of power would be moved northward)
Antioch or Alexandria for "Eastern" Roman Empire? (since Byzantium wasn't in central position anymore)

 

[MerryPrankster]

I wonder, where would be the capital of those empires located...?
Colonia Agrippina or Londinium for "Western" Roman Empire? (since the center of power would be moved northward)
Antioch or Alexandria for "Eastern" Roman Empire? (since Byzantium wasn't in central position anymore)

Constantinople is still supremely defensible and strategic, so I'd keep it there.

Rome would still have the prestige factor.

As far as "Russia" is concerned, St. Petersburg is too difficult to maintain--in Czarist times, it was always falling apart and needing to be repaired.

I'm thinking a site like Novgorod or Moscow would be better. Given how "Russia" does not control the steppe corridor, Kiev would not be defensible enough.

 

[thekingsguard]

Any other useful suggestions ?

As far as the Nordic third empire, look at OTL settlement patterns as pathways for expansion. what I would recommend is the core be around Scandinavia and North Russia, with expansion in Russia traced along the many rivers. To the west, perhaps have the Norse wrest control of Great Britain and Ireland away from Rome, partly because of geography, partly to provide a sort of 'we are now your equals' defing moment for the three empires. At the same time, with Britain and Ireland under her grasp, it will help the Norse provide more of a strong counterweight to Rome, and allow them to have both a strong North Sea Trade and expand across the Atlantic.

 

[MerryPrankster]

As far as the Nordic third empire, look at OTL settlement patterns as pathways for expansion. what I would recommend is the core be around Scandinavia and North Russia, with expansion in Russia traced along the many rivers. To the west, perhaps have the Norse wrest control of Great Britain and Ireland away from Rome, partly because of geography, partly to provide a sort of 'we are now your equals' defing moment for the three empires. At the same time, with Britain and Ireland under her grasp, it will help the Norse provide more of a strong counterweight to Rome, and allow them to have both a strong North Sea Trade and expand across the Atlantic.

This scenario might be doable if for some reason, "Russia" and the Eastern Romans gang up on the Western Romans for some reason or if the British legions revolt, as they were in the habit of doing later, but get isolated in Britain rather than being able to invade the Continent.

 

[thekingsguard]

This scenario might be doable if for some reason, "Russia" and the Eastern Romans gang up on the Western Romans for some reason or if the British legions revolt, as they were in the habit of doing later, but get isolated in Britain rather than being able to invade the Continent.

Well, Rome's grasp on Britian was never strong to begin with. And seeing as Constantinople has strong ties to the Norse, from trade and Vangarian mercenaries, they might support the Norse.

 

[Rex Romanum]

Constantinople is still supremely defensible and strategic, so I'd keep it there.

OTL Constantinople was considered as "strategic" mainly because it is located between two OTL major frontiers; Danube and Euphrates. But in ATL ERE have four frontiers; Danube, Caucasus, Zagros, and Arabia. So I think the imperial capital should be located in Syria or Northern Mesopotamia...and about being defensible, well, your capital will still become impenetrable city if you surround it with thick walls and can be supplied by using large bodies of water, either sea or river. (just like Constantinople in OTL)

Rome would still have the prestige factor.

But as we move closer toward the "Medieval Age" (7th-11th century), the Mediterranean coasts will become drier and drier, and the population center will move northward into Gaul and Germania. (just like what happened in OTL) So the capital of WRE should be located between those two regions...which is why I recommended Colonia Agrippina...

 

[I Blame Communism]

And a power that holds France, Germany, and either or both Spain and Italy is going to control Europe, no excuses.

Early Carolingian empire? Broke up.

Napoleonic Empire? Broke up.

Axis powers? Broke up.

And that's all, folks.

Which is not to say that they were all necessarily fated to break up, merely that your statement is chuckleworthy. There are exactly three excuses and, on the other hand, no evidence at your end.

 

[Eurofed]

Constantinople is still supremely defensible and strategic, so I'd keep it there.

Rome would still have the prestige factor.

These are good arguments why I expect the capitals of *WRE and *ERE to stay in the OTL locations, for the foreserable future. It is theoretically possible that at some point, the *WRE capital is moved northward, but there would be a huge amount of cultural and political inertia against it, and up to late Early Modern Age, Italy remained a quite important part of Europe, economically and demographically, so there may not be that much reason to move the capital out of it, even if Gallia and Germania grow to be just as strong.

I'm thinking a site like Novgorod or Moscow would be better. Given how "Russia" does not control the steppe corridor, Kiev would not be defensible enough.

I agree. By the way, I felt it better to leave *Russia not in direct control of the southern Ukraine's steppe corridor, since it did not happen IOTL up to Early Modern Age, and I seem to vaguely remember, that besides nomad incursions, there may be technological reasons why it would not become heavily settled in Late Antiquity and Middle Age conditions. Something about pre-modern agricultural technology.

 

[Eurofed]

As far as the Nordic third empire, look at OTL settlement patterns as pathways for expansion. what I would recommend is the core be around Scandinavia and North Russia, with expansion in Russia traced along the many rivers.

Well, to define the extent of the *Russian third empire after the revision, I picked the example of OTL Varangian Rus and built it from Norse colonization along the Dniepr and Volga river trade routes over the pre-existent Slavic and Gothic populations. With the main difference that since Norse expansion in Western Europe is blocked by Roman strength, Eastern Europe becomes their near-exclusive area of expansion, so they end up colonizing and conquering the Baltic in addition to northern Russia, unlike OTL. To accomplish what you suggest, we need to include in the scenario the eventual absorption of Norse Scandinavia by *Russia. That's entirely possible, but I'm not really sure when and how this would be most plausible to happen. I eagerly welcome suggestions about the unification of *Russia and Scandinavian kingdoms.

To the west, perhaps have the Norse wrest control of Great Britain and Ireland away from Rome, partly because of geography, partly to provide a sort of 'we are now your equals' defing moment for the three empires. At the same time, with Britain and Ireland under her grasp, it will help the Norse provide more of a strong counterweight to Rome, and allow them to have both a strong North Sea Trade and expand across the Atlantic.

Well, if they conquer Scandinavia, this already gives them an outlet to the Atlantic. Such an expanded third empire might theoretically wrest control of the British Isles from the *WRE, although Scandinavian Norse by themselves have very little chances ITTL. It seems only really likely if the *ERE and *Russia join hands against the *WRE at some point, but it is far, far from inevitable, or even likely.

As soon as Norse raids manifest, the *WRE is going to react by growing into quite the kickass naval power in Northern Europe, so a *Russian conquest of the British Isles is not really likely. It might happen, though, if everything goes well for *Russia.

 

[thekingsguard]

Well, to define the extent of the *Russian third empire after the revision, I picked the example of OTL Varangian Rus and built it from Norse colonization along the Dniepr and Volga river trade routes over the pre-existent Slavic and Gothic populations. With the main difference that since Norse expansion in Western Europe is blocked by Roman strength, Eastern Europe becomes their near-exclusive area of expansion, so they end up colonizing and conquering the Baltic in addition to northern Russia, unlike OTL. To accomplish what you suggest, we need to include in the scenario the eventual absorption of Norse Scandinavia by *Russia. That's entirely possible, but I'm not really sure when and how this would be most plausible to happen. I eagerly welcome suggestions about the unification of *Russia and Scandinavian kingdoms.



Well, if they conquer Scandinavia, this already gives them an outlet to the Atlantic. Such an expanded third empire might theoretically wrest control of the British Isles from the *WRE, although Scandinavian Norse by themselves have very little chances ITTL. It seems only really likely if the *ERE and *Russia join hands against the *WRE at some point, but it is far, far from inevitable, or even likely.

As soon as Norse raids manifest, the *WRE is going to react by growing into quite the kickass naval power in Northern Europe, so a *Russian conquest of the British Isles is not really likely. It might happen, though, if everything goes well for *Russia.

As far as uniting Scandinavia and Russia, it's really quite easy, in OTL, they were culturally united until about the time of the Mongol invasions.

As far as Roman Naval Power, I would think it would be more Mediteranean based, towards the heartland of the empire. With a weak naval presance, and a strong Norse invasion, I could see Britain fall to them.

 

[thekingsguard]

Heres my recommendation for borders fot the three empires. This way you have them based more of geography and cultural influence. You also have a few nice tension points, like the Romans occuping Jutland, the Nordic-Rus owning Brritain, and Rus and Byzantine competition over Ukraine. I would also try to add a few more nations to the mix, maybe a greek influenced Ethiopia or a Roman influenced Mali.

 

[MerryPrankster]

All hail the North Atlantic Empire!

(Or its suitably Germanic-sounding equivalent.)

 

[Eurofed]

As far as uniting Scandinavia and Russia, it's really quite easy, in OTL, they were culturally united until about the time of the Mongol invasions.

Oh, sure. I was just wondering about the most plausible time schedule of such an unification.

As far as Roman Naval Power, I would think it would be more Mediteranean based, towards the heartland of the empire.

I'm quite skeptical about it, in the long term. As soon as the Norse incursions become a significant trouble for Western Europe, Rome is going to react by expanding its naval power in northern Europe till it becomes more or less balanced between the Med and the Atlantic.

With a weak naval presance, and a strong Norse invasion, I could see Britain fall to them.

Well, it may happen if Norse invasion is backed by Russia's power, so it happens after the Russian-Scandinavian unification.

On a stretch, it might also happen if Norse invasion occurs in the early phase of Norse invasion, before Rome may react by boosting its naval power in the Atlantic. In the latter case, however, it somehow defies plausibility how the WRE doesn't send some legions to pull a Hastings soon after they build up their Atlantic fleet, as it is entirely within their ability to do. In a land war, Roman legions are going to kick the butt of an early Norse army any day of the week.

As it concerns your map, I think you are de-wanking the *WRE more than a bit too much. I can see it as somewhat plausible their loss of the British Isles to the Norse Russian empire, or Southeastern Europe to the Byzantines, not both. This is still an empire that can pull on the resouces of Iberia, Italy, and a fully-developed Gallia and Germania.

IMO you are partially basing your map on cultural influences that are not really there ITTL. The Latin-Greek divide did not reach so northward in ancient times, IMO there is no real cultural or strategic reason to push the WRE-ERE border any north of the Danube or west of the Drina.

Your map is also more than a bit too optimistic about Norse unchecked expansion in North America. I would leave it off the map west of Iceland, or otherwise the Romans are in hot pursuit, and just as successful, in North America, depending on which moment we pick.

 

[MerryPrankster]

Your map is also more than a bit too optimistic about Norse unchecked expansion in North America. I would leave it off the map west of Iceland, or otherwise the Romans are in hot pursuit, and just as successful, in North America, depending on which moment we pick.

Once they become aware of the New World, they'll make a grab for it, but given the geography--especially if the Norse control Britain and Iceland--I imagine something resembling Columbu's voyage and ending up in the same place(s).

Plus I would imagine the Norse would find it first--they found it first in OTL and that was without a strong continental power limiting their expansion.

In TTL, there will be no Normandy or Norman Italy or Sicily. All those Vikings will have to go somewhere.