Give me something write about (historical fiction)...

Recommended Videos

Nickolai77

New member
Apr 3, 2009
2,843
0
0
This is the worlds first steam turbine:



And it was invented 2000 years ago by Hero of Alexandria, who lived sometime between 10-70 AD.


To his contemporaries, the "Aeopile" (meaning ball of Aeolus) was regarded as a rather interesting toy which used steam to create motion. As interesting as this would have been to watch, it never occurred to anybody just how revolutionary this basic idea was, but what if they did?

Essentially what would have happened if the industrial revolution kicked off in the Roman Empire in the 1st century AD? The Romans would have not only built roads for a start, they'd have built rail-tracks across the Empire, and dug canals to ship coal to factories manned by tens of thousands of slaves which would have mass-produced commodities and industrial goods for trade across and beyond the Empire, improving everyones living standards (except the slaves perhaps) Roman Britain, with it's rich coal resources would have become one of the wealthiest most important parts of the Empire, and it's likely that with improved farming methods due to mass-produced farming tools there would have been a population boom.

This meant that the Roman Empire would expand, absorbing Germany and going into Eastern Europe, going as far as perhaps Poland. It's possible the Romans would have invented gunpowder as the industrial revolution would have spiked interests in the properties of the Earth's resources, and then mass-produced cannons and then hand held guns, and further experimentation in the Earth's properties may have heralded the beginning of science as we know today. This all happening before 1000AD.

The Roman Empire, being thousands of years ahead of anyone else, would not have collapsed during the Migration Era, it would have probably taken in Barbarians from Eastern Europe and used them as labour in their factories, and would have been able to beat the Huns on the battlefield with gunpowder weapons, by sheer force of numbers and a healthy and growing economy.

Politically it's harder to say what would have happened, perhaps as living standards improved in the Roman Empire due to industralisation, and as people became more educated and they demanded a return off the Republic. There is a second Roman Civil War and the Republic is restored. Given the size of the Roman Empire, it's probable that over time the Roman Empire de-centralises and we get a sort of co-federation of Roman States, close together because of historic trade links and sharing the common language of Latin.Christianity may have also come to be the common religion off Roman Europe, and served as a further unifying factor.

It's then probable that one of these Roman States would have discovered America, perhaps after the Vikings (The Norse-kingdoms would have been virtual client states) failed to settle in Newfoundland. The Roman states however would have had the resources and ability to settle and conquer America. Much of the Middle East would remain "Romanised", and when the Arabs converted to Islam they would have worn themselves out fighting against the Sassanid's, posing little threat to the Roman Empire in the East. It's probable that the Roman Empire may have decided to take advantage of the situation and conquer the Sassanids, giving the Roman Empire a direct route into India and then China (trade made easier with railroads stretching from the Indus all the way to Rome). Both the Romans, Chinese and Indians would grow rich trading guns, technology, spices and tea. Islam would remain penned into the Saudi Arabian peninsula, it's doubtful the Romans would have bothered conquering it, as Saudi Arabia has little strategic value. (Unless the Romans later invent the combustion engine, and discover Saudi Arabia's full of oil)

So, by 1000AD, Europe, the Middle East and North Africa are essentially a collection of loosely independent Roman states and republics unified by a common heritage and Christianity, with technology comparable certainly to that of the early 19th century, perhaps even the 21st century today. If what i have described had actually happened, the technology we would have by 2000AD would be beyond our wildest dreams.
 

Comando96

New member
May 26, 2009
637
0
0
Edit: Post above is brilliant... kinda.

There were 2 steam powered "engines" invented in the ancient world. The one you have a picture of was a Toy used by the guy in Alexandria great Library. The reason it didn't kick of the industrial revolution was he didn't realise what he was holding.

There was an even more significant one that was presented to the Roman Emperor later on and... well... he ordered it be destroyed. The reason? It would destroy the slave trade as they would not be needed which was the underlying foundation to most of the economies of the known world. That one is not on Wikipedia because the Machine was not noted at all(destroyed)... but the account was made of the meeting as most meetings with the Emperor were.

If you wanted Rome to have expanded into the industrial revolution then thats how to do it.

bro1667 said:
ok these are flying out of me, USA wins Vietnam war. simple but hard to exsplain
They told the Geneva Convention to fuck right off and drove through the forest in Indiana Jones type machines chopping them down and launched began conventional warfare towards the capital Hanoi and physically fucked over the country to save it.

They tried to Defend the south but they could have gone Blitzkrieg over to the capital. After that... a bit of genocide... they win!

Yes, to win they would have to be akin to the Nazi's but that's part of the story. Evil USA! :p
 

Viral_Lola

New member
Jul 13, 2009
544
0
0
SckizoBoy said:
As per topic title, I want a new project to sink my teeth into (and preferably get a decent start to before I start my new job).

Stuff I've already covered (whether in series/standalones/short stories):

Second Punic War
Wars of German Unification/Arms Race/WWI (this one was speculative)
WWII
Greco-Persian Wars (specifically the Marathon/Thermopylae/Plataea saga)
Third Crusade

Preferably pre-20th century, involving a war (or three), loads of politicking, speculation (i.e. changed historical canon) if it makes sense/is plausible and justification. So, hit me...(!)
The Spanish Civil War, the Russian Revolution, and... I've got something for this. Just give me a bit. Does it have to be recent because the War of Roses would be interesting if say, Richard III didn't die at Bosworth Field or quite a number of things.
 

Soviet Heavy

New member
Jan 22, 2010
12,218
0
0
Ser Imp said:
Soviet Heavy said:
Speculative Fiction perhaps? Imperial Germany wins World War 1, and western Europe becomes client states? The Nazi party never rises and the United German states and their protectorates turn their industrial might against the still developing Bolshevik Russia?

That'd be a cool story.

Ser Imp said:
Germany and Britain fighting on the same side in the First World War?
You just had to post that right before me didn't you?
In between whores I tend to do a lot of reading, especially history. I've always felt Germany got really screwed over in the last century. Would be nice to see them come out on top without the Nazis. Also Britain and Germany never had any beef before World War 1.
They were buds for a while even. Especially with the Prussians.
 

souper soup guy

New member
Aug 8, 2011
207
0
0
A great time period to write over is the Feudal Japanese clan wars, lots of conflict, codes of loyalty, without anything messy like religion getting in the way(mostly).
 

SckizoBoy

Ineptly Chaotic
Legacy
Jan 6, 2011
8,681
200
68
A Hermit's Cave
Thanks all for the suggestions!

Redlin5 said:
Napoleon invades Britain. Where is the world now.

...

OH GOD WE'RE ALL FRENCH! D:
Rather reluctant about that... one because I love Naomi Novik's stuff and don't want to trample all over it... and everyone kinda knows a lot about the Napoleonic Wars...

Having said that:

thylasos said:
The guerilla campaigns in Portugal and Spain during the Napoleonic Wars?
I'm tempted to turn George Scovell into a rake... hee hee!

thylasos said:
Some guy's experiences around the Battle of Crecy?
The Black Prince... never really knew that much about him. However, I was always faintly bewildered by John of Bohemia though... *shrug*

tomtom94 said:
You did work on classical stuff. I love you.
Thank you! ^_^ Please see blog for some sketches if interested. /shameless plugging!

tomtom94 said:
I've been studying a lot of Stuart England, specifically the kingship of Charles I. His constant failures as a king might be interesting to write about, there are plenty of perspectives you could take; would be a fair bit of research though.
Y'know, I've always wanted to write something about Prince Rupert, 'cos he was one of my childhood idols (and not for being the cavalier general, oddly enough, but because of his rather colourful career aside from that war...).

Ser Imp said:
Germany and Britain fighting on the same side in the First World War?
Already done... =P (Part of the Three Eights cycle I've got going on). WWI = Britain/Germany/Austro-Hungary vs Russia/France/Ottoman Empire/Italy

Still haven't figured out how the US/Japan are going to factor into it...

theheroofaction said:
Hey, I think I've got two

And,What if the american revolution never kicked off.
This would lead to the british empire being a larger military power in europe as well as the obvious results.
Oooo, interesting... I've already had ideas mulling over about a failed Russian Revolution. Political machination that fractures rebellious elements... I can see that. Install a devious Governor General. Research required... *heads downstairs to library!*

Comando96 said:
You want a really cheap idea but simple idea. Alexander the Great didn't die young.
... !?!? ... !! ... Marry me!

*note for later*

Nickolai77 said:
That is quite genius. The technology rises faster than the nation. Wouldn't quite lay it out as you've got there, as the machines have to be manned by someone, so I'm thinking... Spartacus! Of a different sort, of course, and just weave in a variation on the Servile War(s). Health and safety would be non-existent, the plebeian classes would be oh so discontented by the money raked in by the equestrians. Roman Revolution... *manic grin* (can you tell this kind of stuff turns me on?!)

Viral_Lola said:
The Spanish Civil War, the Russian Revolution, and... I've got something for this. Just give me a bit. Does it have to be recent because the War of Roses would be interesting if say, Richard III didn't die at Bosworth Field or quite a number of things.
Truth be told, I don't know that much about the WotR. Though writing from Rhys ap Thomas's point of view is an idea...

Soviet Heavy said:
They were buds for a while even. Especially with the Prussians.
Well, the Prussians are/were north Germans (effectively) (and it's rather interesting that virtually all of the historic Duchy of Prussia is now north Poland and a Russian exclave), and more than half of Europe's royalty (from the 19th century) were related to either the Hohenzollern line directly, or to German nobility/royalty of one flavour or another (Hessian/Saxon/Bavarian/Frisian/Schwerin/Mecklenburg/Mark etc. etc.). The British, Spanish, Dutch and Belgian Royal families all have a significant amount of German blood (hell, before WWI, the Belgian Royal House was Saxe-Coburg-und-Gotha as well). And England and Prussia being at war was rarer than France and Prussia being allies (i.e. the former never happened, the latter happened just once, 1812 Invasion of Russia notwithstanding).

Ser Imp said:
They double-teamed Napoleon together. And that means sumthin!
Fredrick the Great was actually supposed to marry the daughter of King George II. But then the Austrians sabotaged it. Worst. Allies. EVER!
For the former, he was effectively quadruple teamed(!), then double teamed. Man, that's gotta hurt! LOL

And for the latter, you can blame the ambassadors for taking the bribes (must've gotten nice retirements...). Still say what you will about Frederick Wilhelm I, he was a terrible father, 'cos you really wonder if Frederick II was gay and why he didn't love a single woman except his sister was anything to do with his upbringing.

BristolBerserker said:
1930s Britain and Japan join forces and double team the world.
Then turn on each other... that'd be an interesting turn of events. Russia's too big and I love Germany too much to let that happen though!
 

Zetatrain

Senior Member
Sep 8, 2010
752
22
23
Country
United States
Comando96 said:
Edit: Post above is brilliant... kinda.

There were 2 steam powered "engines" invented in the ancient world. The one you have a picture of was a Toy used by the guy in Alexandria great Library. The reason it didn't kick of the industrial revolution was he didn't realise what he was holding.

There was an even more significant one that was presented to the Roman Emperor later on and... well... he ordered it be destroyed. The reason? It would destroy the slave trade as they would not be needed which was the underlying foundation to most of the economies of the known world. That one is not on Wikipedia because the Machine was not noted at all(destroyed)... but the account was made of the meeting as most meetings with the Emperor were.

If you wanted Rome to have expanded into the industrial revolution then thats how to do it.

bro1667 said:
ok these are flying out of me, USA wins Vietnam war. simple but hard to exsplain
They told the Geneva Convention to fuck right off and drove through the forest in Indiana Jones type machines chopping them down and launched began conventional warfare towards the capital Hanoi and physically fucked over the country to save it.

They tried to Defend the south but they could have gone Blitzkrieg over to the capital. After that... a bit of genocide... they win!

Yes, to win they would have to be akin to the Nazi's but that's part of the story. Evil USA! :p
It wouldn't have been that simple. If we had invaded North Vietnam then the Chinese would have most likely gotten involved and they proved that they could be effective during the final months of the Korean War.

One way this could be prevented is if General MacArthur was able to use nuclear weapons against the Chinese during the Korean War and as a result China does not want to get involved in Vietnam for fear of another nuclear attack. Then again any use of nuclear weapons would have opened a whole new can of worms such as other countries turning on the US for their reckless use of nuclear weapons and maybe even a confrontation with the USSR.
 

Zetatrain

Senior Member
Sep 8, 2010
752
22
23
Country
United States
Soviet Heavy said:
Ser Imp said:
Soviet Heavy said:
Speculative Fiction perhaps? Imperial Germany wins World War 1, and western Europe becomes client states? The Nazi party never rises and the United German states and their protectorates turn their industrial might against the still developing Bolshevik Russia?

That'd be a cool story.

Ser Imp said:
Germany and Britain fighting on the same side in the First World War?
You just had to post that right before me didn't you?
In between whores I tend to do a lot of reading, especially history. I've always felt Germany got really screwed over in the last century. Would be nice to see them come out on top without the Nazis. Also Britain and Germany never had any beef before World War 1.
They were buds for a while even. Especially with the Prussians.
I think it would be interesting to see what would happen if Kaiser Wilhelm II never replaced Bismark as the chancellor of Germany. Think about it, Bismark was able to secure a "reinsurance treaty" with Russia which basically meant that Germany and Russia would not take any action against each other if one of them got into a war with France and therefore preventing a two front war. It should also be noted that at this time Britain was neutral and had no beef with Germany.

However, once Kaiser Wilhelm II replaced Bismark everything went to shit. The treaty between Germany and Russia fell apart which led to Russia allying themselves with France. On top of that Germany then somehow managed to push Britain into an alliance with France and Russia.
 

SckizoBoy

Ineptly Chaotic
Legacy
Jan 6, 2011
8,681
200
68
A Hermit's Cave
Zetatrain said:
I think it would be interesting to see what would happen if Kaiser Wilhelm II never replaced Bismark as the chancellor of Germany. Think about it, Bismark was able to secure a "reinsurance treaty" with Russia which basically meant that Germany and Russia would not take any action against each other if one of them got into a war with France and therefore preventing a two front war. It should also be noted that at this time Britain was neutral and had no beef with Germany.

However, once Kaiser Wilhelm II replaced Bismark everything went to shit. The treaty between Germany and Russia fell apart which led to Russia allying themselves with France. On top of that Germany then somehow managed to push Britain into an alliance with France and Russia.
I generally admire Bismarck... but I find him to be the troublemaker-in-chief with regard to Germany, because in one man you have both the founder and the destroyer of the German Empire. He knew full well that Frederick III's liberalist ways would take a long time to stick with the Prussian Diet and the Junkers, so his decision to alienate Wilhelm II from his parents was what sounded the first death-knell of his political career. Turning the Crown Prince into a reactionist (after a fashion) absolutist was probably Bismarck's first and biggest mistake. In his desperation, he asked the Dowager Empress to intercede on his behalf, which is the ultimate irony. As for Britain and France, that wasn't really a German mess-up as a Royal masterstroke played by Edward VII. His reception in Paris was... frosty, to say the least, but he left to fanfares and adulation.

Anyway, in my Three Eights cycle, I went further back and had Frederick III rule for eight years, instead of fourteen weeks and most of the first part deals with his relationship with Bismarck and his struggle with cancer. A much more sedate affair than most of my other scribbles...
 

Comando96

New member
May 26, 2009
637
0
0
Zetatrain said:
It wouldn't have been that simple. If we had invaded North Vietnam then the Chinese would have most likely gotten involved and they proved that they could be effective during the final months of the Korean War.

One way this could be prevented is if General MacArthur was able to use nuclear weapons against the Chinese during the Korean War and as a result China does not want to get involved in Vietnam for fear of another nuclear attack. Then again any use of nuclear weapons would have opened a whole new can of worms such as other countries turning on the US for their reckless use of nuclear weapons and maybe even a confrontation with the USSR.
My Granddad was in Korea and frankly he would have loved for just the threat of nuclear attack... it would have put a serious stop to the help given to North Korea or what was left of it.

The proposal of a Nuclear attack was presented but Washington declined in the form of changing generals in charge. From there on in the Chinese realised their losses to cross a single river were way to high and trenches were dug in on both sides.

One main problem with Korea was it was not the terrain for tanks an became an artillery war. Vietnam was the jungle... if they could have removed the jungle... they'd have a decisive blow. Would China attack the USA directly? No... that was why they supported others to do it for them ;)
On the defensive China militarily could be crushed... if it weren't for Russia also in the equation...
 

Tom Roberts

New member
Mar 1, 2010
52
0
0
Mohammed "converts" to Christianity, at the hands of the Nestorian monk. This leads, 6 centuries later, the still strong Byzantine Empire into alliance with the (still Zoasteric) Persian Empire against the invading Mongol Horde.
 

Zetatrain

Senior Member
Sep 8, 2010
752
22
23
Country
United States
Comando96 said:
Zetatrain said:
It wouldn't have been that simple. If we had invaded North Vietnam then the Chinese would have most likely gotten involved and they proved that they could be effective during the final months of the Korean War.

One way this could be prevented is if General MacArthur was able to use nuclear weapons against the Chinese during the Korean War and as a result China does not want to get involved in Vietnam for fear of another nuclear attack. Then again any use of nuclear weapons would have opened a whole new can of worms such as other countries turning on the US for their reckless use of nuclear weapons and maybe even a confrontation with the USSR.
My Granddad was in Korea and frankly he would have loved for just the threat of nuclear attack... it would have put a serious stop to the help given to North Korea or what was left of it.

The proposal of a Nuclear attack was presented but Washington declined in the form of changing generals in charge. From there on in the Chinese realised their losses to cross a single river were way to high and trenches were dug in on both sides.

One main problem with Korea was it was not the terrain for tanks an became an artillery war. Vietnam was the jungle... if they could have removed the jungle... they'd have a decisive blow. Would China attack the USA directly? No... that was why they supported others to do it for them ;)
On the defensive China militarily could be crushed... if it weren't for Russia also in the equation...
While I agree that China would not attack the USA mainland directly, I don't see any reason why they wouldn't attack USA forces in Vietnam directly if the USA started a ground war in North Vietnam. I mean wasn't the reason that they got involved in the Korean war was because they wanted what was essentially a buffer zone between the them and an ally of the United States. You basically have the same situation in Vietnam if the US invades North Vietnam.
 

CouchCommando

New member
Apr 24, 2008
696
0
0
Ok hows this one.

The scene is the fledgeling nation of Israel, the height of cold war hostilities, having just seen off the intrigues of the British Empires occupation of Palestine and declared themselves a nation in the face of Arab hostilities, The young sole nation for the worlds semetic peoples is surrounded on all sides by hostile neighbors some with clout in both courts in the east and western power houses of the cold war, both been courted by the Soviets and the Western democracies.

Israel as it stands even with the favor of various factions and their own peoples from all over the world and its governments stands practically alone in face of almost certain annihilation and the common threat of been "swept into the sea" as was been vocalized by new world stage player the newly freed from British Imperial Rule .... Egypt and its allies in the Arab League. Some would say they carried a common past no matter how briefly but inexplicable the world seems drawn to a flash point at this period of brinkmanship in the cold war. As the US establishes Nuclear launch facilities beneath the Iron curtains air defense early warning grid in Turkey.

A new orator takes to the halls of US power ,a charismatic war hero by the name of John Kennedy, America is enthralled by this glamorous playboy and his equally classy wife, Unbeknownst to either the young nation nor the equally young president they are already on an inexplicable collision course one that will shake the very foundations of history.

As one sought a savior in a new age of super weapons another tried desperately to wrest the world back from the brink of Nuclear holocaust, and made stand to prevent any further escalation or other nations taking up these oh so new and terrible weapons of mass destruction.

On on Friday, November 22, 1963, in Dealey Plaza, Dallas, Texas things came to their oh so unnatural and horrific climax, shortly after ward the world gained a new nuclear player right near the heart of the worlds oil reserves.