Historical Nexus Points

[st barbara]

Re: Historical Nexus Points

 

Absolutely right "Wyrm Ouroboros". My "really simple" version of the "Alternative Civil War" goes a bit like this. Virginia stays in the Union. Robert E Lee is given command of the Army of the Potomac. Six months (or less) later Lee's army marches triumphantly into Montgomery (or wherever else the capital of the Confederacy might have been) and the Confederacy surrenders. As a result of this Ulysses S Grant never comes to prominence and does not go on to become President, dissapearing into drunken obscurity. Who then might have become president ? I doubt that Lee would have accepted the nomination.

[lemming]

Re: Historical Nexus Points

 

The post-WWI influenza epidemic is more deadly.

Actually, I would of gone with if the influenza epidemic hadn't happened when it did. I read about the epidemic which is thought to have come out of Kansas and wound up transported to Europe in 1917 which wound up throwing some wrenches into the war at the time. Including some German advances which were being pushed before the main push from the US arrived.

 

There's also thought that Wilson came down with it during the negotiations at the end, which was why many of his points were blunted.

 

At least that's what this book talked about. (I think it's called The Great Influenza Epidemic)

[Vestnik]

Re: Historical Nexus Points

 

There was a book out recently that showed that the colony did not vanish but people packed up and moved. So it never truely went away. Your idea though is a nexus.

 

This is no longer a bone of contention? The mystery has been solved?

[Vondy]

Re: Historical Nexus Points

 

?? Taiwan held that seat until 1971, when it was given to the PRC. So what you suggest is what really happened....

 

(... which leads to the interesting concept ... suppose one or more posters here are from alternate timelines? ... Or cast that into a RPG campaign, where advisors and advisees, who never meet FtF, are in different timelines, neither realizing it ... at first.)

 

Read it again. I said the UN doesn't give the seat to China...

[Supreme Serpent]

Re: Historical Nexus Points

 

Another thought from another book. 'Hitler & Stalin - Parallel Lives' by Allan Bullock. Comparitive biographies of Adolf Hitler and Josef Stalin.

 

Strange but absolutely true. There was a period of a few weeks when both men actually lived in the same city. It was Vienna, some time in the 1920s ( book gives the exact period, but I cannot find the entry just now), well before either became (in)famous.

 

Adolf was a street artist, Josef was part of a delegation at some international conference. There is no indication that the two ever met - Vienna was and still is a fair-sized city, and they moved in entirely different circles. But, as the book itself says, it is fascinating to picture how Hitler and Stalin could have unknowingly brushed shoulders on a busy street or some such thing.

 

Plus, if one brings alternate histories into the mix, to quote the great philosopher: "That do raise some mind-boggling possibilities, don't it?"

 

As another trivia point, at one point during WWI Churchill and Hitler were in units pretty much directly opposite each other in the lines.

 

Speaking of Churchill, if your nexus point involves him there's plenty of opportunity to get rid of him before he comes to prominence - he led a fairly dangerous life. For example, as a young officer he spent some time as an observer with the Spanish forces in Cuba while they were fighting rebels in the 1890's (before the Spanish/American War) and was narrowly missed by a rebel bullet during an ambush. Plenty of other examples could be found, I'm sure.

[Sundog]

Re: Historical Nexus Points

 

As another trivia point, at one point during WWI Churchill and Hitler were in units pretty much directly opposite each other in the lines.

 

Speaking of Churchill, if your nexus point involves him there's plenty of opportunity to get rid of him before he comes to prominence - he led a fairly dangerous life. For example, as a young officer he spent some time as an observer with the Spanish forces in Cuba while they were fighting rebels in the 1890's (before the Spanish/American War) and was narrowly missed by a rebel bullet during an ambush. Plenty of other examples could be found, I'm sure.

 

Oh, yeah. He basically started his career as a journalist riding with British Patrols during the Boer War, and he was one of the few British politicians to go to France to see what the situation was in the trenches of WWI. Say what you like about the man, he was no coward.

[assault]

Re: Historical Nexus Points

 

[*]Karl Marx had been capitalist' date=' or at least socialist, instead of creating full-on communism?[/quote']

 

I've been thinking about this one, and the answer is: not much would have changed.

 

Engels, and others, were working along similar lines independently of Marx. In fact, Marx and Engels teamed up precisely because of the similarity and agreement in the conclusions they were drawing from their independent studies.

 

Even without Engels, something broadly similar would have emerged. Furthermore, the actual organisation that first adopted "Marxism" as its program emerged independently of M&E. They weren't originally members.

 

The socialist/communist movement emerged from the radical fringes of the French Revolution in the late 1790s. It had 50 or so years of previous existence before Marx and Engels came along. It existed without M&E, and would have continued to do so if they had never got involved, or had gone in a different direction.

 

So the answer is: not much would have changed.

[Wyrm Ouroboros]

Re: Historical Nexus Points

 

The socialist/communist movement emerged from the radical fringes of the French Revolution in the late 1790s. It had 50 or so years of previous existence before Marx and Engels came along...

 

So the answer is: not much would have changed.

 

Yes and no. Marx and Engels, and by extension Lenin, significantly popularized the idea -- they codified it, if you will. To draw a parallel, there were a fairly significant number of Christians around in the 3rd Century AD, but they weren't really working from the same playbook, nor did they really have much of a leadership. Constantine's conversion and subsequent support (as well as certain 'requirements', like they get themselves a consistent playbook) of the Church turned it from a maybe-it-survives fringe group into a significant player -- and eventually into a dominant powerhouse.

 

I suppose the real 'What If?' on this one would have been, 'What if the Revolution had failed?' No Soviet Russia, the Tsar continues; communism doesn't get a serious foothold in the world, including not in China ... etc. etc.

 

Robert E Lee is given command of the Army of the Potomac. Six months (or less) later Lee's army marches triumphantly into Montgomery (or wherever else the capital of the Confederacy might have been) and the Confederacy surrenders. As a result of this Ulysses S Grant never comes to prominence and does not go on to become President' date=' dissapearing into drunken obscurity...[/quote']

 

Ignoring what may or may not happen with Virginia, Lee at the head of the Army of the Potomac would have likely hammered the South into submission by Christmas. The talents of Grant rising to the fore (and to relative popularity) are less important, however, than all the OTHER changes that the American Civil War brought forth.

 

This war, eight months long from the firing on Fort Sumter in April 1861, would not have heralded the significant changes that the four-year war did. The encased-cartridge rifle (meaning our current bullet/powder/primer sort of firearms) would not have evolved into production so quickly. Rail would not have been pushed so hard as a means of heavy transportation. The slaughter of over 600,000 soldiers, and almost a million people total, would not have had the massive psychological shock upon Americans that it has, changing their outlook on combat from being a manpower-heavy issue to being a materiels-heavy issue; Americans more than anyone in the world feel that it's better to waste a $70,000 missile than one guy. Slavery would not have been made a war goal in September of 1862. Most of the serious sociopolitical problems would not have been solved, and the rumbles may have lasted even longer than Reconstruction.

 

Hence my point...

[Vestnik]

Re: Historical Nexus Points

 

I suppose the real 'What If?' on this one would have been, 'What if the Revolution had failed?' No Soviet Russia, the Tsar continues; communism doesn't get a serious foothold in the world, including not in China ... etc. etc.

 

 

I assume you mean specifically the October Revo and not the February Revo.

 

The tsar had already been deposed, but I suppose he could have returned as some kind of figurehead, like the Emperor of Japan. Whatever happened though, I think the days of the autocracy were irreversibly a thing of the past without the October Revo. I imagine Russia would either have fallen apart (a definite possibility at that time), or, failing that, moved in the direction of some kind of liberal government.

[death tribble]

Re: Historical Nexus Points

 

This is no longer a bone of contention? The mystery has been solved?

 

The author researched the records and looked at other colonies in the same area and sea trade and picked up the info from there. Bit like the Marie Celeste really. It's only a mystery if you skim the surface.

[The Weapon]

Re: Historical Nexus Points

 

Bring a supply of antibiotics to Alexander when he was dying in Babylon.

 

Persuade the Spanish to delay launching their armada against England for a week or two until that storm passes.

 

That last one's harder than you think, naval invasions were launched as soon as the wind looked right (because otherwise you might wait weeks or months). It's better to have the Amarda simply disobey orders and go directly for the English fleet while it's stuck in Portsmouth with the wind and tides against it. There was little Drake could do to counter such a move.

Alternatively tell the Spanish about the Gulf Stream so they don't mostly run into the coast of Ireland (which is VERY rocky).

 

For more ideas see alt.history.what-if and soc.history.what-if two usenet

groups specifically about the subject.

My favourite for most "Bang for your buck", kill the single Viking who held the bridge against Harold's forces before the Battle of Stamford bridge, 1066. It's not hard just wade out and stab him from the side while he's fighting the first man (as they did historically, but 36 men later). That saves maybe a quarter of an hour so Harald Hadrada is even more suprised than he was. Less of his men get to don armour and Harold's losses are nowhere near as great. He has more men at the battle of Hasting later in the week. This is particularly true if his brother, Tostig changes sides again when he sees how hopeless the fight is. Hastings was close so the Godwinson's can probably win and keep England Saxon changing the legal and military history of all Britain.

[Peregrine]

Re: Historical Nexus Points

 

Here's some ideas regarding Civil War leaders. If I get time, I may post more.

 

*Removing Lincoln before he became President would have had a profound effect, because none of the other candidates had either broad support of the people or the character and will necessary to ride out the War - the South would likely been able to sue for peace.

 

More to the point, Lincoln was the standard-bearer for the new (at the time) idea that the Union held primacy over the States, and that the States surrendered their sovereignty (and any related rights) to the Union when they joined it. Remove Lincoln, and that idea might not have taken hold (and been codified into Constitutional amendments, that being necessary to implement the otherwise unConstitutional idea) until much later, if at all. And, given Lincoln's statements during the 1860 election campaign regarding that idea, if Lincoln isn't elected President, the Southern States aren't backed into a corner - they still have the 'out' of secession theoretically available, thus they might be more willing to work in Congress to get their grievances (tariffs being chief among them) addressed rather than seeing no recourse but to secede anyway and try to make it stick over Lincoln's insistence that they legally could not do so.

 

Another possibility:

 

If McClellan's scouts hadn't found a copy of Lee's battle plans before Antietam, the marginal outcome might well have been a federal rout that put Lee's forces at the outskirts of Washington; at the very least Lee would have accomplished his stated objective of releasing the Maryland State Legislature from prison*, thus allowing them to convene and (if they chose) to consider a Bill of Secession.

 

*Lincoln ordered them arrested and put in prison in order to prevent them from considering any such Bill, before any such Bill had been brought into consideration. Let me emphasize - they had committed no crime; Lincoln ordered them arrested in anticipation that they might commit what he declared to be a crime. This is a violation of the legal principle of Habeas Corpus (there must be a crime committed before a person can be arrested).

 

No, he's not one of my historical heroes.

[Ian Mackinder]

Re: Historical Nexus Points

 

That last one's harder than you think, naval invasions were launched as soon as the wind looked right (because otherwise you might wait weeks or months). It's better to have the Amarda simply disobey orders and go directly for the English fleet while it's stuck in Portsmouth with the wind and tides against it. There was little Drake could do to counter such a move.

Alternatively tell the Spanish about the Gulf Stream so they don't mostly run into the coast of Ireland (which is VERY rocky).

 

Even harder than that.

 

The Spanish Armada was, in every respect, a disaster looking for a place to happen. They were critically short of just about everything. A lot of the ships were in poor shape or (due to lengthy time in harbour) had inexperienced crews. The command structure was so messed up as to be incoherent - loads of nobles running ships who were clueless, or wouldn't accept the authority of others because of either squabbling OR because the other guy was an inferior rank. Ship guns were unevenly distributed (many nobles used their rank to glom onto as many as possible), which also led to absurd situations like some ships having as many as a dozen different gun calibres. There were also language problems - not all ships in the Armada were Spanish, quite a few came from elsewhere.

 

Then, to cap it all off, when the Armada reaches the Netherlands (where they are to pick up Parma's army and ferry it to England), they find out (a) Parma had not been informed they were coming, and is thus not ready; ( There are no piers and very few small craft with which to load said army on said ships; © Their anchorage is far from secure from the English, the Dutch rebels OR the weather.

 

So, for the Armada to be a success, one needs to go much deeper, and perhaps as far back as when it was first formed. For instance, the guy in overall command was (arguably) not an incompetent, but never wanted the job in the first place and certainly never had the authority or resources he needed.

[Sundog]

Re: Historical Nexus Points

 

Even harder than that.

 

The Spanish Armada was, in every respect, a disaster looking for a place to happen. They were critically short of just about everything. A lot of the ships were in poor shape or (due to lengthy time in harbour) had inexperienced crews. The command structure was so messed up as to be incoherent - loads of nobles running ships who were clueless, or wouldn't accept the authority of others because of either squabbling OR because the other guy was an inferior rank. Ship guns were unevenly distributed (many nobles used their rank to glom onto as many as possible), which also led to absurd situations like some ships having as many as a dozen different gun calibres. There were also language problems - not all ships in the Armada were Spanish, quite a few came from elsewhere.

 

Then, to cap it all off, when the Armada reaches the Netherlands (where they are to pick up Parma's army and ferry it to England), they find out (a) Parma had not been informed they were coming, and is thus not ready; ( There are no piers and very few small craft with which to load said army on said ships; © Their anchorage is far from secure from the English, the Dutch rebels OR the weather.

 

So, for the Armada to be a success, one needs to go much deeper, and perhaps as far back as when it was first formed. For instance, the guy in overall command was (arguably) not an incompetent, but never wanted the job in the first place and certainly never had the authority or resources he needed.

 

You are so right.

 

How to win this? First, forget the whole armada idea completely. It's not only a waste of time, it's a bad idea (half the problems would have been obviated by using half as many ships). Second, guard your back. Put all that energy into subduing the Netherlands, using a smaller number of ships to leapfrog the Dutch defenses.

 

Once that's done, build a new invasion fleet, in Amsterdam. Sweep a force across the channel in high summer, grab a landfall, and start building it up to levels where you can break out of your (guaranteed) encirclement, and drive for London. You have the numbers, and by far the better army - get that into play, and Spain has at least a fighting chance.

[Wyrm Ouroboros]

Re: Historical Nexus Points

 

And don't forget to end each turn in a town, if at all possible.

[death tribble]

Re: Historical Nexus Points

 

Is Wyrm a Diplomacy player ?

 

But here's one we have not thought of at all. What if the Mongol invasion of Japan had succeeded. Evidence shows that the ships were sabotaged deliberately by the builders to ensure that the ships sank and quite a few were not fit for purpose. What if the ships were not sabotaged and were fit for purpose so that the invasion gets to Japan. You have a whole new dynamic after that including perhaps no atom bombs in WW2 against Japan.

[Ian Mackinder]

Re: Historical Nexus Points

 

But here's one we have not thought of at all. What if the Mongol invasion of Japan had succeeded. Evidence shows that the ships were sabotaged deliberately by the builders to ensure that the ships sank and quite a few were not fit for purpose. What if the ships were not sabotaged and were fit for purpose so that the invasion gets to Japan. You have a whole new dynamic after that including perhaps no atom bombs in WW2 against Japan.

 

In all likelihood, Japan's sunsequent history would have altered to the extent of being almost unrecognizable. Possibly, it would have either integrated into China OR become a vassal state (as were most other east Asian nations / cultures at one time or another).

 

On the other hand, Japan was pretty much a Chinese vassal in the very early 1400s anyhow. Not through being conquered militarily, but due to China's economic and cultural dominance at that time.

 

Not sure where this one could have led. Historically, Japan spent much of its time in isolation anyhow. So, after some time under Mongol rule (with attendant cultural changes), could Japan (or whatever it became) have gone a different way? Dunno.

 

Also, the invasion could have had positive or negative effects on the Mongols. Success may have encouraged them to become a maritime power, with the possibility of exploring and (attempted) conquest of other regions in the Pacific basin (the Philippines? Indonesia? Australia? The Americas?). On the other hand, the effort in taking and holding such (comparitively) remote locales could have sped up their decline.

[BcAugust]

Re: Historical Nexus Points

 

Actually, if you're going for "near incomprehensible" changes, try removing one or two people from ancient China, both widely acknowledged as genius ahead of their time and both lived around the same time. Who? Confucius and Lao Tsu, author of the Tao te ching. Without Confucianism's emphasis on raising scholars up, and the Tao's placement of soldiers on the bottom rung of society, China would likely have ended up even more of a Warring State, divided amongst itself. Plus, the whole Asian rim would have changed without China there to be an example.

 

Then again, I have no idea what the world would look like from that. India dominant? After all, if the Mongols didn't keep breaking against China, I imagine they might have taken over Europe a few centuries earlier, breaking Rome and returning Europe to squabbling pagan states.

[assault]

Re: Historical Nexus Points

 

Also' date=' the invasion could have had positive or negative effects on the Mongols. Success may have encouraged them to become a maritime power, with the possibility of exploring and (attempted) conquest of other regions in the Pacific basin (the Philippines? Indonesia? Australia? The Americas?). On the other hand, the effort in taking and holding such (comparitively) remote locales could have sped up their decline.[/quote']

 

The Mongols were a maritime power!

 

The Yuan dynasty was probably the high point of maritime trade between China, India and the Islamic world (prior to the European incursions).

 

They were well aware of the Philippines and Indonesia, and received tribute from states in these areas. It is possible they were vaguely aware of the existence of Australia, although there was very little reason for anyone to go there.

 

The Americas? Well, I guess that could have been possible. Once again, the question would have been: why bother?

 

Incidentally, the Basques and Portuguese seem to have been fishing the Grand Banks before Columbus did his little trip. It probably would have only been a matter of time until they ran into the Americas, probably Newfoundland.

[Ian Mackinder]

Re: Historical Nexus Points

 

The Mongols were a maritime power!

 

The Yuan dynasty was probably the high point of maritime trade between China, India and the Islamic world (prior to the European incursions).

 

The Mongols' attempted invasion of Japan used a fleet that composed predominantly of river craft and/or vessels built in considerable haste. Well-suited to calm waters, NOT to serious oceanic crossing - and a recipe for disaster in any weather that turned unpleasant or worse. Not quite the hallmark of an established maritime power, I think.

 

Genghis Khan conquered China circa 1279. China rebelled in 1352, and pushed out his successors, replacing them with the Yuan Dynasty. The third emperor of that dynasty, Zhu Di, was the one who formed the Treasure Fleet in the early 1400s, which is KNOWN to have sailed as far as east Africa and the Persian Gulf several times (and may well have travelled considerably further).

 

I refer you, sir, to a book I have previously mentioned on a number of other threads - '1421 - The Year China Discovered The World' by Gavin Menzies - which covers the events you mention.

 

Yes, China was a maritime power by the 1400s, the Mongols had attained a reasonable impact on them, culturally and genetically. By the same token, the Mongols still existed at that time as a separate land-locked state, their status with Imperial China being that of somewhat recalcitrant and rebellious vassals. Not a maritime power. Not by then, anyhow.

[st barbara]

Re: Historical Nexus Points

 

While we are talking about the Chinese in the 15th century. What if the Chinese had (as Menzies contends) reached the pacific coast of North America in the early 1420's? What if, by say 1430, they had got as far as Mexico and begun trading with the Indians there ? By the time the Spanish arrive in the 1500's it is possible that there is a state in western Mexico with advanced metallurgy,composite bows , advanced Chinese Medecine and gunpowder weapons which might even have been able to defeat the Spanish invasion of 1519 !

[assault]

Re: Historical Nexus Points

 

Genghis Khan conquered China circa 1279. China rebelled in 1352' date=' and pushed out his successors, replacing them with the Yuan Dynasty. [/quote']

 

Not wishing to steal your catgirl, but you should probably check your facts.

 

The Yuan Dynasty were the successors of Genghis Khan you referred to. The Han Chinese dynasty that replaced them were the Ming. They were the ones who sent out the Treasure Fleet.

 

But China was already trading with the Middle East, by both land and sea. It's not an accident that Zheng He was a Moslem.

[Ian Mackinder]

Re: Historical Nexus Points

 

Not wishing to steal your catgirl' date=' but you should probably check your facts..[/quote']

 

My bad. Zhu Di was of the Ming Dynasty, which was the dynasty that booted out the Mongols.

 

That is what I get for reading and typing in haste.

 

Which does not alter the other facts as presented. Basically, the Mongols (as distinct from the Chinese) had no maritime tradition. To assert that the Chinese MUST have gotten their maritime know-how from the Mongols makes no sense.

 

My own guess is that China's maritime capabilities were already well-developed (probably from various sources) by the time the Mongols took over in 1279. Consider that the Bao Chuan (Treasure Ships) of the early 1400s were arguably the most advanced and seaworthy sailing ships to be found anyplace until the 19th century, and that Chinese astrogation was similarly well-developed. OK, MAYBE these things could have been crash-developed within a century, but it seems more reasonable (to me, anyhow) that their know-how and experience was acquired at a more leisurely pace. At least a couple of centuries, perhaps considerably longer.

[assault]

Re: Historical Nexus Points

 

To assert that the Chinese MUST have gotten their maritime know-how from the Mongols makes no sense.

 

Which is why nobody has asserted that.

 

My own guess is that China's maritime capabilities were already well-developed (probably from various sources) by the time the Mongols took over in 1279.

 

Well, duh.

 

This is why, in my original post, I wrote:

The Yuan dynasty was probably the high point of maritime trade between China, India and the Islamic world (prior to the European incursions).

 

This discussion is getting kind of annoying, so we should probably let it go.

[Ian Mackinder]

Re: Historical Nexus Points

 

The Mongols WERE a maritime power! Your assertion, not mine.

 

Furthermore, the zenith of China's maritime capabilities came in the early 1400s. Well after the Mongols were booted out of rulership of China - and in fact had devolved into a vassal state.

 

Consider the discussion let go.