Laurence of Arabia? A small group of armed rebels effectively working over the entire ME, in the face of a indifferent population.
Particularly implausible (think "Stars & Stripes" level) episodes in OTL history
- Thread starter President Ledyard
- Start date
The Nika riots. Half of Constantinople burned during rioting by chariot racing fans. Whoa.
1. Christianity (from the perspective of a no-Jesus TL, this would be a pretty "out-there" ATL)
2. Alexander the Great (absolutely improbable, IMO - not that you couldn't make the same argument for most any conqueror but I think Alexander's conquest was one of the most unlikely of all)
3. Domestication of Maize (look a pictures of teosinte, the pre-cursor to modern maize - not especially likely in my opinion)
4. North & South "America" (an entire hemisphere named after Amerigo Vespucci - LOL)
2. Alexander the Great (absolutely improbable, IMO - not that you couldn't make the same argument for most any conqueror but I think Alexander's conquest was one of the most unlikely of all)
3. Domestication of Maize (look a pictures of teosinte, the pre-cursor to modern maize - not especially likely in my opinion)
4. North & South "America" (an entire hemisphere named after Amerigo Vespucci - LOL)
Last edited:
Wasn't the biggest reason the Alexander got so famous because the invaded the backwater regions of Persia, where no armies were kept? If someone invaded a temperate siberia and beat back the individual armies sent from the far west (east), it'd look more impressive than it was.
Yeah, pushing into the boondocks of the Persian Empire was a big part of it certainly, but it's my understanding that Bactria was one of the more integral parts of the Empire and it enjoyed a relatively high level of civilization.
but he also defeated every army Persia could send against him, including ones that were many times the size of his own. Also, with the exception of the Greeks of Anatolia, the Egyptians, and a few others, most subject peoples resisted his invasion and sided with the Persians, at least until Guagamela.
Grey Wolf
Donor
'Almost all' is an interesting way of thinking when I can come up with
UK, Sp, Sw, No (didn't exist in 1900 tho), Dn, Hol, Bel, Lux, Liech (again not really there in 1900), Mon - for Europe
Cambodia, Malaysia, Thailand - for Indo-China
Tonga - for Pacific
Japan of course
Morocco, Jordan (didn't exist in 1900), Saudi Arabia (didn't exist in 1900), the UAE and Bahrain... Not sure whether Oman and Qatar are monarchies ?
We would then compare it against the 'disappeared' - Serbia, Montenegro, Bulgaria, Rumania, Russia, Germany (and all the internal ones), Austria, Italy, Portugal - for Europe
Luang Prabang and Vietnam for Indo-China but they were powerless under French rule
China of course, and Korea
The Ottomans and Egypt under the Khedive
Persia
All the Indian princes, tho' again they had only limited power under the British
The Bey of Tunis, more or less powerless under the French
Abyssinia, Yemen...
Many others one could conjure up are either deposed (Madagascar) or still exist in a localised sense (the Maoris).
Best Regards
Grey Wolf
Well, both were British protectorates (with several Emirates instead of a federated Monarchy in case of the UAE), but still monarchies.
Yes, they are.
I think the main point is that before WWI, the default option outside of the Americas was monarchy, while Republics were an exception; after WWI, this started to be the other way round. Still, this all has perfectly good historical reasons; if we exclude developments like this, we could as well say that all AH that includes socio-economic change were unrealistic.
I think if there is a theme here, it is successful revolutions. In addition to the Bolshevik Revolution, pointed out earlier, I'd also like to mention the Cuban Revolution. The latter, beginning with the Moncada Barracks whereby many guerillas were killed and Castro, and others, imprisoned. Although he was released early, Castro went into exile in Mexico. Coming back to Cuba, he and his followers had more setbacks (their boat was delayed and landed in the wrong place on the island), lost some rebels, and continued to be heavily outnumbered by Batista and his forces. Yet, Casto took over the country in a couple of yrs, and continues to rule it to this day(!)---more or less--despite attempts by the US/CIA/exiles to get rid of him.
Come to think of it, the Vietnam War had some ASB-ish qualities to it. Though I like to think this is less about the end result, then how long the conflict lasted (20 years!--and this after the French did their bit).
Come to think of it, the Vietnam War had some ASB-ish qualities to it. Though I like to think this is less about the end result, then how long the conflict lasted (20 years!--and this after the French did their bit).
When you look at it though, a common theme is that in both those revolutions, it happens in a time of low government with minimal outside hinderance. The Bolsheviks could take over because Russia was in the pits, was economically ruined, and not enough people favored the existing government. Castro could take over because of the widespread corruption and oppression by the government, as well as the squalid state of Cuban society. Add that to the fact that many in the US supported him, and the US didn't do what it later did and support allied banana republics at all costs, and you could say that the US helped Castro get to power. My old history teacher knew some college students who went and joined in Castro's revolution, come to that.
As for the CIA attempts, I'll be the first to admit that Castro has nine lives.
But out of curiosity, how many of those attempts were after the Cuban Missle Crisis, where the USSR got the US to promise not to invade?
Come to think of it, the Vietnam War had some ASB-ish qualities to it. Though I like to think this is less about the end result, then how long the conflict lasted (20 years!--and this after the French did their bit).[/quote]
Jordan Remaining Neutral During The Yom Kippur War ...
Thiis, After Being One of The Aggressors ...
In The Six Day War, ONLY Siix Years Prior!
Thiis, After Being One of The Aggressors ...
In The Six Day War, ONLY Siix Years Prior!
Jordan Remaining Neutral During The Yom Kippur War ...
Thiis, After Being One of The Aggressors ...
In The Six Day War, ONLY Siix Years Prior!
well, being a reluctant aggressor.... Hussein really didn't want any part of the Six Day War, but feared the repercussions if he didn't go to war, because his people were so in favor of it... in the Yom Kippur war, he happily sat out most of it because he hated Syria so much (they'd invaded him not long before), but still ended up sending an armored brigade to the Golan to save Syria's butt....
Alcuin
Banned
How about, after 50 years of Communism, a democratic Bulgaria elects King Simeon as Prime Minister?
That poor old Russia could defeat Sweden, one of the most powerfull states in Europe in the early 18th centuary.
That a bunch of Semite nomads could defeat two of the most powerfull states of the 7th centuary.
That the Byzantine Empire was defeated by a bunch of merchants.
Spain... 'Nuff said.
That a bunch of Semite nomads could defeat two of the most powerfull states of the 7th centuary.
That the Byzantine Empire was defeated by a bunch of merchants.
Spain... 'Nuff said.