The weekly alternate history debates!!

This is just something that I pulled off the top of my head. I think that every week or so, I will put up a special alternate history scenario, and all those who like to debate on history, can decide whether one side should have won over the other, or what would the scenario have ended up like. Use logic, knowledge o history, and seriousness in this debate, lest you want to be banned from the debate completely. =P


The question:


This is in the far past history, what if the Germanic barbarians never ransacked Rome, nor ever laid a hand on their specific territories? Would the Empire still exist, would it have grown, or would other complications have doomed the Romans to a slow collapse anyway? Give your own answer!

Remember, this is a debate, so argue your point until another wins over your, or vice versa.

In truth, the concept of these ragtag, uncivilized Barbarian tribes overrunning Roman Empire is somewhat of an overstatement. There are many indicators that the Roman Empire themselves were responsible for Germanic tribes dwelling within the Roman Empire. It was only at the Roman's own mistreatment of these tribes that caused them to revolt and do the said pillaging. Yes, various tribes were more hostile than not, but most of them could have been destroyed by the Roman Empire completely, except that they didn't in return for the tribes to do the bidding of the Empire.

The Visigoths were a small tribe that was forced into eastern Europe because they were servery threatened by the Hunnic tribe so they made themselves home within the boundary of the Empire. The Romans saw this as a hostile act and soon the both sides did battle. I believe that it was due to military strength and an embargo that defeated Visigoths. However, the Romans saw this tribe as a relatively cheap army to be used as a human barrier against the huns, so the defeated tribe were assigned as federates (or auxiliaries) and stationed at Moesia, marking the first of many times where a tribe did battle and ended up inside the Roman Empire. Of course, Emperor Valens was fairly cheap and decided to cut major funds for the Visigoths, so the Visigoths became really mad and destroyed a Roman Army and Valens himself while they were in heat.

Alaric, the king of the Visigoths, decided that living in Eastern Europe was too close to the Huns, so they decided to move west. They were defeated by the Romans a following three times. At each of these times, the General Stilicho could have destroyed them, but they were still seen more as an asset than a threat. Stilicho in theory was suppose to promise the Visigoths economic and military support, but he never did. A General Constantine emerged as the Western Roman Emperor after an internal power struggle, and had Stilicho assassinated as Constantine III saw him as a potential threat. Alaric and the Visigoths, who were dependent on Stilicho for the promised supplies, got angry at Constantine of Rome for killing him, so they teamed up with local Italians who were not a fan of Constantine's usurpation of the throne and sacked Rome for payback.

And lets look at an even earlier sack of Rome by the Guals. This tribe was in the middle of negotiations with the Roman Empire to settle near Clusium. While Rome was okay with this settlement, the people of Clusium were not, and killed a ranking Gual figure while he was in negotiations. Mad at the people of Clusium, the Guals demanded that Rome turned over Clusium who were responsible for unjustly attacking their ambassadors. Rome refused for whatever reasons and the Guals charged into Rome and sacked it because Rome stood for bias instead of justice.

Another time when Rome was sacked was when the Western Empire had already lost most of its land after mistreating several tribes. At Emperor Nepos death, General Odoacer assumed command of the West. However, since the West was as reduced as it was, Odoacer offered himself and the remains of his Western Empire to Eastern Emperor Zeno, while Odoacer became a subordinate. Both the Western and Eastern Roman Empire was reunited, but it was short lived. Odoacer became increasingly popular with Barbarian tribes since he had Germanic heritage. Zeno became tremendously suspicious of Odoacer and his gaining of power. The Ostrogoths, who were recently freed from the Hunnic tribe, was looking for land. Zeno promised that if the Ostrogoths overthrew Odoacer's Western Empire, than the Ostrogoths would be granted the land of Italy. The Ostrogoths did exactly that and sacked Rome in the Emperor Zeno of the Eastern Empire.

In this case, the tribes were not entirely responsible for the sacks of Rome. It was in some ways due to flimsy Roman management, misuse of tribes, and internal corruption and greed that had already existed within the Roman Empire that lead to the misfortunes of the Roman Empire. Tribes were forced onto Roman land instead of random fanatic raids. The Empire repelled most of their attacks, but instead of finishing the job, these were continuously employed to do dirty work. It was the mismanagement of the Romans that created the Barbarian invasions and eventually their own demise.

But had these tribes not moved into Roman land, then they would have most definitely been defeated by the Hunnic threat and incorporated into the Huns. The Romans would not have had the meat shields that they needed in the form of barbarian tribes, while the Huns would have been much stronger than in history, thus becoming a fairly large obstacle for whatever was left of the two Roman Empires of that time. It didn't matter if the Romans were able to defeat this new Hunnic tribe or not; there would have still been power struggles between the two Roman Empires (both external and internal) that would most likely brought the Empires to the ground anyways.

Wow... really good! I actually agree with everything you said up there.

Much of Romes demise was due to their own faulty governmental systems. For one, their "bureaucracy", as large as it was, never got anything done. Leaders were corrupt, and most of the time incompetent anyway.

Another big dogma toward Rome was the entire idea that they seemed to have that using the barbarian troops as mercenaries is a horrible idea. Mercenaries really do not hold high regard for leadership,.. that is part of the reason why the Holy Roman Empire was so disorganized, decentralized, and militarily quite weak.

All in all, it was the Empire itself and the barbarian tribes that caused the Empires downfall. I do believe that even if none of the barbarians entered into the Eastern half of Europe, the outcome would probably be the same.

Cran? You're a genius. 'Tis all.

I have one, what if Adolf Hitler remained a painter, and never invaded Poland.

I think he probably would have found some way to spread is horrifying ideals someway or another. But, I suppose that WWII might have never happened... MAYBE.

But to be frank, as much as he was evil, he was good. He boosted Germany right of of the depression, into a "Goldern Era" if you will. Yes, he murdered millions of Jewish people, but he also gave us the rockets, and tanks you see before you. If it weren't for Nazi Germany, the people who made the modern rocket, and tank possible would of never united. I'm not saying I like Hitler, only that: As much as he was a bad person, he was a good leader.

I am fairly certain that with human innovation, rockets and tanks would still have been refined one day or the next, as in other nations were already refining their own. It would still have been done.

Yes, he united Germany, only to have the country under the impression that they were of a superior race and had to unleash his SS to keep it that way. His party pulled them out of the depression, except he angered several superpowers when Germany decided to not pay off millions of dept. Yes, Germans under the Nazi party developed state of the art weaponry (if you can say that's a good thing), but he used it for terror and that other thing.

Every "good" thing about the Nazi party has an extremely negative consequence that lead to their own downfall, which kind of cancels it out.

BleachKing wrote:I think he probably would have found some way to spread is horrifying ideals someway or another. But, I suppose that WWII might have never happened... MAYBE.

The Nazi party was already in existence regardless of Hitler. Hitler just tipped them onto the spotlight. The ideology would still be around, but I can't say for certain if they would become the de facto party.

If Germany remained the Weimar Republic, I would reckon that there would still be a WW2, but it doesn't exactly have to be Italy/Germany/Japan v Allies. The Pacific War would be expansionist Japan vs anyone affected by it. There would also be an Cold War, except USSR and USA actually declared against each other and were actually duking it out. The terrible experiences of WW2 probably deterred both nations to hold back against each other (among many reason). Without a Germany/Italy/Japan WW2, both the US and USSR would probably be more eager to trump over the other.

Well, then it would probably not have the WW2, yes maybe, but in theory I think that WW2 broke many hostilities between Germany, Japan and the rest of the world. I mean, back then we would have thought that the Germans were Homosexual fiends, but since WW2 happened, Germany felt regret after the war and thus started being cool boy. Thus, you don't see people trying to call other people Nazis (well, some do, like Megan Fox, but these are the really not-so-smart people, as I would mention). You see more stereotypes against Religion rather than the Nazi Party. As for Japan, well, they had their army taken away, their big guns too, and they kinda look up to the US as their brother now for some reason. This might sound a bit weird, but to me it makes sense.

Regardless of the Nazi Party being the prominent faction in Germany (and that's assuming they did it without Hitler), there would still have been a war in the Pacific. Japan was literally on their own the entire war, so having less allies that didn't really do much for them didn't matter. The US/Britian might have actually unleash more fury upon the Japanese if they weren't occupied with those crazy Nazis running around, we would have still defeated Japan, and they would still be our brothers.

As for Italy, Allied forces could have been defending Germany from Italy, since one of Benito's motive was to recreate the Roman Empire. Of course, he didn't invade Germany since Hitler was his ally, but had Germany not become a right wing state, then Italy could have tried to invade the Weimar Republic if it ever came to since parts of Germany was a storied battleground of the Roman Empire.

Canter, I never specified that the alternate reality WWII would be the same factions that took place in the actual WWII, the world was already tense enough, especially in Europe after WWI that another was somewhat inevitable.

Yes, the Nazi party existed, but Hitler was able to give them much much more power.

And to you Bang, Tanks had been around since WWI, first used I believe by the British, therefore tank technology was not invented nor advanced too much by the Germans. There was a transition period between the first World War and the second in which all nations who used that technology were constantly advancing such things.

Also, the missile, if we must get technical, was first used by the Chinese in the 13th Century... maybe not using modernized technology like the Germans had, but the thoughts behind such self-propelled explosives had been created looonnng before the formation of Germany, which to be honest, was not all that long ago. But yes, the Germans were the first to really use it in that kind of combat.

Either way, I believe that they did not contribute as much as people may think.

self-propelled explosives had been created looonnng before the formation of Germany, which to be honest, was not all that long ago. But yes, the Germans were the first to really use it in that kind of combat.

Either way, I believe that they did not contribute as much as people may think.[/quote]

I mean rocket, as in outer-atmosphere rocket.

Self Propelled weaponry is one of the simplest forms of weapons,

I understand that the Chinese, and Koreans used rockets very early, but I mean rocket propelled probes.

Indeed, but my reason for saying this is because it is human nature to advance [discounting the Dark Ages]. Therefore, at some point either then or later, the atmospheric rocket would have been created.

Either is a valid point, I mean, this IS an alternate history debate. XD

William becoming the King of England complicated things, a lot. First, had he fallen and failed to defeat Harold, that would mean that their would still have been an Anglo Saxon king.

William's insertion into the throne suddenly made English the "peasantry" language, since William and his Norman elites spoke French. Along with the elites borrowing fiefs in both England and Normandy, this naturally gave the "English" noblemen direct ties to the King of France and the King of England. King William, by the way was an underling of the King of France as Duke of Normandy.

Now what happens when France and England goes to war against each other? Things get confusing very fast when you are a vassal that serves both sides. Eventually, France wanted to retake fiefs that were held by English Vassals, while the English wanted to keep them. Long story short, a war of many battles broke out for what seemed like a hundred years.

It is very likely that had the Duke of Normandy never became the English king, several centuries worth of wars that the two countries pitted themselves against each other might have gone more peacefully (practically everything that happened to France during 1000-1800s).

I have been neglecting this for a while, so I think I'll make a new one.

This is for all the nerds or otherwise closet nerds out there.. normal people can answer this if they have the cajones. XD


The Question:


What would have happened in the Star Wars universe if Padame never became pregnant and had Leia and Luke? Would Anakin have turned to the Dark Side still? If so, would there have been any hope left for the galaxy?

Yeah... who said this had to be real world history? >=P

DVP, note that if you don't want to elaborate on points, you should not be posting in the Podium. It's intended for deep discussion and intelligent debate. Your opinions are fine, but please elaborate on them if you wish to use this forum.

Anyways, to ensure I'm not continuing an old problem:

I haven't watched Star Wars, but I do know that without Luke, there wouldn't be a hope in hell for the Galaxy, at least not for generations. Though perhaps Yoda and the others could have found some other hero?

Maybe so, I forgot that Yoda and some others were still living..

And on an off note, I am genuinely surprised that you have never seen Star Wars. O_O With your love of space tech and such.. then again, you did refrain from joining Vode An.

BleachKing wrote:What would have happened in the Star Wars universe if Padame never became pregnant and had Leia and Luke? Would Anakin have turned to the Dark Side still? If so, would there have been any hope left for the galaxy?

Anakin had a vision of Padme dying at childbirth after he found out that Padme was knocked up => Anakin became Palpatine's dark side bitch in order to prevent this vision from coming true.

It's really a question of if Anakin would still have death visions of Padme dying if she was or wasn't pregnant (something that is impossible to predict).

However, the Galaxy would still have been screwed, since Palpatine would have control of millions of Clone soldiers and trillions of Battle Droids as his Darth Sidious persona; a fairly comfortable position.

You could say that Mace Windu could have ended Palpatine's life then and end it all, but it is heavily speculated and argued in that Palpatine faked his defeat in order to lure Anakin fully into the Dark Side by having him wtfpwnt Mace Windu.