Talk:Roman History

From IBWiki
Jump to navigationJump to search

Is the Cyrenaean POD of 117 AD & 120 AD (depopulation and recolonization under Emperor Hadrian) in violation of QSS?Theophilus88

Good question...I wrote this as a preliminary, and acknowledge that I've not taken into account the necessary changes for the differences in Europe. Because of this, I would say, if it doesn't affect the genesis of Wenedyk, Thuringia, Jervaine, or Kemr, (I think that's all of them) that it shouldn't be a problem. Am I missing anything? BoArthur 17:26, 16 October 2005 (PDT)


Been mulling over the various timelines and such about IB, and all this in the wake of re-reading several books on the Roman Empire. Towards that end, I'd like to point out some a couple of details and from them put forth a theory/thesis.

As far as I can tell, each early Point of Divergence within IB take place inside the Roman Empire and are in fact the result of different Imperial policies than were practiced *here* as in:

  • 135 CE - The Roman emperor Hadrian swamps Judea with Roman colonists after defeating Bar Kochba, creating a hybrid culture.
  • 175 CE - The Roman emperor Marcus Aurelius conquered Boiohaemia and Sarmantia and prepared ground for romanisation of Eastern Europe.

Most importantly--at least I would posit--Rome evidently left somewhat greater support structures in place (possibly simply more soldiers) in place when they left Britain, thus preserving the Romanized Celtic lands which became Kemr.

Every other POD I have seen may be accounted for by the above. By altering the movement of troops in, say, 200 CE, the crew of a ship sailing in 1600 CE is changed and as a result may leave a certain port sooner or later than *here* or might get lost (or not) because they had a differetn navigator, or someone else drew their map, or the Captain simply noticed a cloud formation he didn't otherwise and so steered away from bad weather. My point is--since Roman history is still being worked out might it not be an excellent starting point to figure out precisely why Imperial Roman policy was slightly different?

Some thoughts...

  • Tiberius died at an early age and it was his brother Drusus who succeeded Augustus.
  • Augustus died sooner, making Tiberius princeps when he was still young enough to take an intense interest in government.
  • Drusus' son Germanicus died later, after serving as Augustus' right-hand man for several years (instead of Sejanus).
  • Caligula did not become sick roughly a year after assuming the purple and his behavior was less erratic. He reigned a little longer, less outrageously, and maybe even died of natural causes rather than having been assasinated.
  • Claudius, son of Drusus, was physically hale and lacked a stutter so that he succeeded Tiberius directly following a long public career.
  • Brittanicus, not Nero, succeeded Claudius.

Just something to consider... Zahir 19:12, 16 October 2005 (PDT)

This could also lead to a sort of Bethisadian Ecumenism, pulling in nearly all the strings that have been created by the various PODs, and lead to the universal change. We also need to account for the settling of Jervaine, but we'll need to either look that up or contact Christian Thalmann who's been a touch quiet lately.
I like your suggestions, as well, Zahir, and I would like very much to see some discussion on this as well.
Don't forget the POD for my Visigoths of the Azores.
BoArthur 21:47, 16 October 2005 (PDT)
Very interesting read! Thankee! But from what I read, the POD could still be Roman Imperial policy, which shifted the movements of populations (as the article itself noted). Zahir 07:56, 17 October 2005 (PDT)
It would probably be good if the changes to early roman history be subtil (1-2 more legionaire in a given outpost) which over the years built up to major changes. Something like a completely different emperor (or order of them) is a bit too drastic for me.
Now what Nero had for his last diner on the other hand..... --Marc Pasquin 18:04, 17 October 2005 (PDT)