User talk:Red VS Blue

Messages from before 9 June 2014 can be found in the archive for this talk page.

Archive

Superpowers
Wow, thanks. It may seem like a bit too much, but your TL was the first I ever saw on this wiki, and it's actually what made me want to join. This is, seriously, a massive honor.

Don't mind the squirrel thing, by the way, it's mostly a joke.

So, as I said, I love Superpowers, but I don't really hold it as a standard for plausibility for a few reasons.. Those six cover the whole TL- I just chose examples for the last three. (For those three, I was trying to showcase three general problems- Firstly, that your PODs don't really seem to cover the changes made, secondly, that the development from the PODs would be different from just OTL but earlier, and lastly that the cultural diffusion is all wrong.
 * 1) Possibly the most minor, but I feel that there are too many PODs. The First and Second- in 173 and 394- are understandable, since the "Butterfly Effect" would not effect them, but by 1185, the chances are the ripples would have reached the Mongols- probably speaking, no Genghis Khan, no Empire, he might not meet his wife, if he has a son it probably wouldn't be Jochi, the attack probably wouldn't have occurred- so on, so forth. Those points, of course, are all debatable, but the chances that Genghis Khan would even be born following the 173 AD seems quite slim to me, never mind the Empire, him meeting his wife, or anything of the sort. The Mongols were pretty strange, and just a few diffrences from OTL would have randomly change them.
 * 2) Also, while all of these changes would lengthen the span of the Empires, eventually, there would be a bad emperor who would screw things up. Your TL, though, seems to ignore that. Well, not quite; rather, you assume that after each failure, someone else can come back and fix the issue; the problem is, the result would be the mistrust of each new government after the fall of the old one.
 * 3) The stability of these states. Each of them cover ethinicities which would, eventually rebel. While some of the smaller ones (such as Japan) might be fine, the Romans are just off the hook.
 * 4) The Ahau tower. I'm sorry, but that happen's in the 12th century AD. I don't think even the ATL Mayans could do that, not on such a scale. Besides which, the design in all wrong. The Eiffel tower was based off of previous French arcitecture; the Mayans would do that same, and even after 1000 years I find it hard to believe that they could change their styles that much.
 * 5) "1561 - Tesla writes a treatise on radio waves, describing their properties, creation and use." This line. No offense, but I think that events might proceed a little differently than "OTL but 500 years older"- that applies to more than just this example.
 * 6) The Roman palace in India- that shows Islamic arcitecture which would not be introduced ATL. Might I suggest, rather, something based off the Red Fort?

Again, I absolutely love Superpowers, and since a few of these changes- 2 and 3, especially- would catastrophically change the TL, I actually urge you NOT to put those in effect.

Thanks,  21:07, June 23, 2014 (UTC)

Well, I do feel somewhat that given the scale and depth of your PODs, that the result would be an entirely different structure throughout the world. For one thing, most of the Medieval Ages was governed by a struggle between the Germanic North and the Romantic South. This continued even past the Reformation- if you look at a map of Europe in 1600, you will notice that the more Germanic nations- England, Germany, Scandanavia, Switzerland, The Netherlands, Belgium, to an extent- those were the nations that went Protestant, while the Romantic nations- Italy, Spain, and France- stayed mostly true to the Catholic Church; the exception was in Northern France, where the influence of the Normans and others had Germanicized the area. I've actually written a TL based on this, TATM (I'm still working on, it's really barely anything at the moment), which focuses on what would happen in the case of a Germanic "victory"- in this case via the battle of Hastings.

Anyway, my point is, due to the resurgence of the Romans, that struggle would basically just never occur. Instead, I'd imagine a more East to West split, especially during the period when the Romans did, actually, split.

As for the ethincities, I have an issue with the Mongols, especially. The Chinese, OTL, are and were a very proud and nationalistic people, and like OTL, I doubt they'd take kindly to being ruled by barbarians for long. When the Mongols arrived, they took over a very divided China. Assuming this is the same OTL, I'd say the takeover would be fine; but when the Mongols began to fragment, the Chinese would have swung back; and given that there were 100 million of them...

The Romans- well, frankly, I'm not sure. The Germans who the Romans took over OTL were pretty loyal to the Romans up to the point of their fall; ditto the Latins. I'd imagine those races would not be much of a problem. But the sheer size of the Roman empire would make it impossible to govern. My problems are with the Romans continued control over their segments of Africa, India, and Western America. The Indians, OTL, proved pretty easy to takeover, but again, I don't think that would happen ATL. You see, again, without the Muslim influence, you'd get much smaller states, with less power, but also significantly less divided and MORE than capable of uniting to see off an enemy; they did it multiple times OTL.

Regards,  20:34, June 24, 2014 (UTC)

Actually, with Africa, I was referring more to a general series of lesser uprisings by the individual tribes. Such a thing occurred in the later years under the British- the result was Independence, though to be fair, the British first fought the most costly, devastating war ever been fought, WWII. However, eventually, the uprisings might lead to an overstretching of the armies.

A way to get around that might be the method the French began to put into action, but never completed; they gave full citizenship to the Africans, educating them as Frenchmen, so on, which was quite successful in some nations, like Algeria. Unfortunately, France put it in effect too late. The Algerians raised to think like Frenchmen would cause the Algerian Crisis and the fall of the Fourth Republic not long after. Put into effect early, this might, however, minimize the damage from the Africans.

When the British invaded, they did it by helping some Indian states against others, because they were not viewed as major powers in India till it was too late. The Romans would not have this advantage, and the uniting of the Indian nations, which did occur oft in India, would occur again. The Romans might win, but they'd have one hell of a fight first; I mean like Persia vs Greece fight. The Persians won, but it doomed their empire; one hundred years later, the weakened Persian empire fell to the Greeks under Alexander the Great. Of course, it might not be something so drastic, but it would be a slow, hard slog. Furthermore, the Mongols might take some parts of India too.

If Romans were strong by 1100 or so, then the Muslim armies which would prey on the remains of the Byzantine empire might be deflected northward, towards the Mongols. The Mongols, after being attacked by the Muslims, would- ahh- compress the Mongols, who would be forced to unite, move up, and smash the Muslims.

Actually, that's a brilliant solution, because it would permanently weaken the Muslims, and the others would not have such a problem.

23:04, June 24, 2014 (UTC)

Actually, if you disagree with any of my ideas, I'd urge you to say so. I've read your TL, but I'm no expert; you probably know more about it than me.

The Indians united, for instance, during the invasions of Shahabuddin Muhammad Ghori, until Prithviraj Chauhan managed to divide them under very... unorthodox circumstances that I doubt would occur in another situation. Chauhan was a very unique character.

Even with the Indians split, half refusing to help Chauhan, with their armies devasted by infighting, they put up one hell of a fight.

Against the Mughals, they have less of a distinguished record, primarily because the first target of the Mughals was the Delhi Sultanate, who weren't really liked by the rest of the subcontinent.

Some theories suggest that's exactly what the Mongols did OTL, just against the Chinese (well, the Jin) rather than the Muslims. The Jin weren't particularly aggressive; with the added spark of a million Muslims beating down the door, I'd say the Mongols would definitely do the smart thing; fight.

The Muslims started hitting the Byzantines in the 1100s or so. A similar time- assuming a stronger Rome- would have them go Northwards, through Russia, maybe, hitting the Mongols in the 1200s; slightly later than OTL, I suggest.

I do hope these ideas are being helpful.

23:37, June 25, 2014 (UTC)

By the way, I'm going on vacation between tomorrow and the 12th of July. I may not be able to respond in that time, though there is a chance I might be.

23:43, June 25, 2014 (UTC)

Finally back, haha.

Having seen your counterpoint, I actually agree with you. In the case of the Romans, I can understand how- with some few periods of major governmental change- they might survive.

I still, however raise an issue with the Mongols. They were never particularly unified or centralized, and I doubt they could have made it for 700 years.

The problem with a Muslim expansion in the 7th Century is the split between the Sunnis and the Ismailists (who would later become the Shias). The Ismailists, such as the Fatamids, were generally the rulers, and were ironically tolerant of every religion except that of the Sunnis. By the 1100s or so this issue was solved to the overwhelming victory of the Sunnis. In the 7th Century you'd have to deal with that obstacle to expansion, which, I should stress, is not insurmountable. That's why I suggested the 1100s, though of course an earlier time would be possible.

Actually, India, on further research might not be as hard as I made it sound to takeover. While taking the whole subcontinent over may be difficult, the North, especially, would fall under a sustained and unified attack.

01:19, July 13, 2014 (UTC)

I agree with your ideas for the Mongols- actually, my thoughts were running around a Persian based centralization of the Empire, similar to your theory (a Persian based, non-Muslim Ottoman Empire might arise from that).

I'm not an expert on Islam, but I can help, I think, with the Roman colonization of India, when that comes about.

19:00, July 13, 2014 (UTC)

Abolishment vs abolition
Looks like "abolishment" is correct but I prefer "abolition".

http://grammarist.com/usage/abolishment-abolition/

Bil

EoGuy (talk) 18:41, June 24, 2014 (UTC)

Now that you mention it, I agree with you here. Abolition does sound better. I'll go fix one page where I saw abolishment alongside another spelling mistake you pointed out ("widdling"). Thank you, kindly, Bil.

Red VS Blue (talk) 20:05, June 24, 2014 (UTC)

widdling
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/widdling

I thought you might have meant that so I left it.

Bil

EoGuy (talk) 20:46, June 24, 2014 (UTC)

Oh my! That's what I had written there this whole time... Well, I'm glad you pointed that out and that you left the call of leaving or removing it to me. As silly as the word was, that was polite of you to do.

Red VS Blue (talk) 21:03, June 24, 2014 (UTC)

Help with other pages?
Hello there! It's been quite a long time, hasn't it? I have been wondering if you would ever want some help with designing some pages? I would love to expand upon some information on perhaps the Inca, the Ottomans, or even someone else like the Danes or the UCC. It's just a thought.

Rcox1995 (talk) 21:34, June 24, 2014 (UTC)

Yes, quite a long time! I'm glad to see you're still active here.

I appreciate the offer but I'm focusing on rewriting the detailed history of the timeline and I'm leaving the modern pages alone, since I anticipate massive rewrites of some of them given my ongoing changes to past events. At my current rate, I estimate no less than a year before I return to editing the country articles, unless something comes to my mind that I feel I need to write down somewhere. If I do have some ideas, then I may add them to the country articles, even if I'll only edit it out later.

Have you been working on anything here lately?

Red VS Blue (talk) 21:46, June 24, 2014 (UTC)

Oh, really? Well, that's still exciting news. I enjoy the detailed timeline quite a bit, so I definitely look forward to that. And I can understand that.

I haven't, no. I haven't been able to quite figure out anything I would like to do on here. I mostly just browse on here. I wish I could do something, but oh well.

Rcox1995 (talk) 21:52, June 24, 2014 (UTC)

Yes, very exciting! For me, at least. It's been fun going into more detail on the history. Already, a great deal has been changed.

Nothing wrong with having nothing to work on here. For some people, this is a place to write and, for others, a place to read. That's natural even for members of a wiki such as this one. But I'm sorry to hear you're not able to do as much here as you want.

Red VS Blue (talk) 22:29, June 24, 2014 (UTC)

Oh, it's exciting for me. I'm eager to see what all is changed. I have essentially read every word of this Alternate History, so it's exciting for me.

And I suppose that is true. I have always been more of a reader.

Rcox1995 (talk) 00:02, June 25, 2014 (UTC)

Well, so far, I've completely rewritten every timeline article from 180 AD to 485 AD. The rough outline of events has not changed but the text was all overwritten and a number of events have different outcomes, as well as received a great deal more detail. I'd be interested to hear what comments you would have on the new history.

This place certainly needs readers as much as it needs writers.

Red VS Blue (talk) 15:13, June 25, 2014 (UTC)

I've noticed! I've looked through some of the pages already, because I just generally tend to flip through some of this timeline whenever I get bored. I don't think I really ever get sick of this Alternate History. But yes, I agree with you wholeheartedly. It really does.

Rcox1995 (talk) 21:49, June 28, 2014 (UTC)

Oh! Also, I hope that this isn't too much of a bother, but I just wanted to be of help. In your detailed timeline, I've noticed a few times that you would use the word 'straight' instead of 'strait' to describe the narrow body of water between two landmasses (i.e. Strait of Hercules). I didn't want to edit it unless you were actually okay with it.

Rcox1995 (talk) 02:30, June 30, 2014 (UTC)

Yes, that would be a mistake on my part. Feel free to edit "straight" to "strait" or "straights" to "straits" if you see those errors. Thank you for asking!

Red VS Blue (talk) 04:55, June 30, 2014 (UTC)

Shall do. I've been reading through all of the detailed timeline so far that you have recently edited, and it seems to be coming along great. When I have the time, I will be sure to skim through all of them and edit things out.

Rcox1995 (talk) 01:17, July 3, 2014 (UTC)

Question about maps
Alright, so, I have a question? Do you mind if I offer a bit of criticism on some of the maps? I don't mean at all in a bad way, I just want to point out a few things that I feel that detract from this timeline being a truly alternate timeline. If not, then I won't say it, of course. I just wanted to ask first.

Rcox1995 (talk) 00:21, July 8, 2014 (UTC)

That's very kind of you. I'll gladly accept your criticism! And if it's that the borders seem too much like the borders of real countries, I completely agree. It's an aspect of my early work that I'm open to suggestions on what seem especially not alternate. If it's something else I haven't considered, then I'd be even more grateful to hear it. Either way, please, go ahead.

Red VS Blue (talk) 00:55, July 8, 2014 (UTC)

There are a few areas on the world map that bother me...quite a bit, lol. I really enjoy geography, so seeing real-life borders just bothers me. But like you said, it was from your early work, and it's understandable.

The first area of note is the southern boundary between Roman South Columbia and the Inca. While the border along the Rio de la Plata is understandable, the border between Brazil and Urugauy serving as a border just bothers me.

The second area is the junction between the Mongols, the Ottomans and Roman India. The modern day borders of Iran, Afghanistan and Pakistan are all present there. This one bothers me a LOT simply because Afghanistan should not have been such a defined region by the time it was conquered. Of course, I'm not sure about what you had in mind with that area of the world anyways, but nevertheless, I understand where you were coming from.

Those 2 areas are the primary ones. I haven't looked too extensively into the other maps, but if you want some criticism on those too, I can give it a shot.

Rcox1995 (talk) 01:51, July 8, 2014 (UTC)

Ah, I hadn't thought about the South Columbian border. I agree now that the border there needs to be changed. Same with India, although the Himalayan part of the border is sensible enough to remain.

Well, I do have one map about which criticism might be helpful (this ). Historically, this map reflects changes over four centuries to this map. So far in my rewrite, that map is the most accurate and detailed one that I've posted so I'm very interested to know how readers might understand and interpret it.

Red VS Blue (talk) 01:52, July 9, 2014 (UTC)

I have no problem with the Himalayan border, that has been the natural border of India per se for millenia.

As to that map in particular, I don't see any particular issues. It is very detailed and you obviously took quite a bit of time in making it. The provinces of Rome were always weird-looking anyways, so everything checks out for me at least.

Rcox1995 (talk) 03:18, July 9, 2014 (UTC)

Thank You Very Much for The Welcome Sergiusz01 (talk) 10:12, July 9, 2014 (UTC)

Drydock or dry dock
Looks like both are correct.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drydock

Bil

EoGuy (talk) 23:42, July 22, 2014 (UTC)

Spelt
Ah - but spelt is a kind of wheat :)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spelt

Bil

EoGuy (talk) 23:56, July 22, 2014 (UTC)

What does EoGuy mean?
In case you wondered what EoGuy means - Eo is the abbreviation for Esperanto - La Internacia Lingvo - and I am a guy who speaks it - and teaches a FREE 10-lesson email course.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Esperanto

Bil

EoGuy (talk) 00:24, July 23, 2014 (UTC)

Source mode
If you've ever noticed all British (not English) spellings are underlined as incorrect in Source mode.

Bil

EoGuy (talk) 00:26, July 23, 2014 (UTC)

Neat changes!
Hey there! I've been reading the updates you've been making as you've been going along, and it sounds really interesting! I know that I probably can't do too terribly much, but if you ever need my assistance for something, I am more than glad to help.

Rcox1995 (talk) 02:03, August 7, 2014 (UTC)

_____

Hi! Long time lurker/reader of superpowers. I want to ask you about the numbers for the Roman asteroid mining program... That's a shit load of metals being extracted from those asteroids haha. Where/how did you come up with those numbers? Will asteroid mining really be that profitable for us?

- anonymous user

Keen eye, my friend. When put in perspective, those quantities are ludicrous for mining metals on Earth. For profitable mining of asteroids, a pretty large number of factors need to be considered and I'm happy to lay out how the Roman asteroid mining program accounts for these significant problems.

As a nice reference point, every kg of rock taken from a near Earth asteroid using present technology (we're talking real world here) costs about $17 billion US, assuming that the cost scales linearly with amount (could go either way). This cost includes building the probe, launching it into space, flying it to the asteroid, and getting it safely back home.

Now, a large portion of the cost of space travel is in the launch. Every kg of payload sent from a launch pad to a low Earth orbit costs about $40,000 US. Using a space elevator to carry material to space would cost about as little as the amount of electricity needed to deliver the energy of lifting each kg of that material to a geosynchronous orbit (once the construction cost is paid). A civilization that has effectively free access to electricity basically incurs no cost of launching ships into orbit.

From low Earth orbit, the next obstacle is getting to the asteroid, a problem mirrored by coming back from the asteroid. These trips cost fuel and the amount of fuel varies with the specifics of the trip and the mass of the ship. There are two components to any journey between two points in the solar system: going closer or farther from the Sun, and going from one angular position around the Sun to another angle. The second tends to be the longest component when flying from an asteroid to Earth but this can be effectively shortened by using solar-powered mass drivers to launch ships between Lagrangian points around the Sun without them wasting fuel. If a ship is going to Earth and gets launched to a point ahead of Earth in its orbit, then the ship can simply go straight toward the Sun and cross paths with the Earth when it catches up in its orbit. This shortcut leaves a distance of a little over 80 million km for a one-way journey between the Earth and the asteroid belt (advances in propulsion technology would go toward reducing the cost of even this component of the journey).

Dozens of trips between Earth and an asteroid would be needed to create the mining facilities and ore processing facilities. Once those exist, material can only be brought back by a ship regularly making this trip (...probably). For a near Earth asteroid or an asteroid dragged into the orbit of the Earth, these trips are even easier than the 80 million km journey out to the asteroid belt. If the distance is brought down to a terrestrial orbit, then the amount of fuel would be less than a round trip to the Moon.

Anyway, that is all well and good, but maybe you're asking how the hell that many tonnes of metal could even come from asteroids. There are a lot of ways this question could be answered but it may be most helpful for me to use examples. Psyche 16 is a nearly pure nickel-iron (M-type) asteroid with a mass of 2.27x1016 tonnes. Harvesting iron at a rate of 24 billion tonnes every year would take over 400,000 years to deplete Psyche 16 of iron. This asteroid only has about 1% of the total mass of the asteroid belt. As another example, a tiny little 30 meter diameter asteroid could hold as much as $25 billion US in platinum. At $43,000 US per kilogram, this projection implies over 500 tonnes of platinum in that small asteroid (less than a billionth of the available mass of asteroids in the belt).

All of that being said, I don't believe that the numbers written on the asteroid mining page for Superpowers are plausible. I wrote that page nearly half a decade ago and will probably scrap the entire thing except in concept once it's time. The numbers ignore the tremendous logistical task of transporting that quantity of material (especially through space) and mining on a surface that will be rapidly changing as the mining progresses. Furthermore, I question what a civilization would do with 50,000 annual tonnes of platinum (although 24 billion metric tonnes of iron may not be unreasonable).

Asteroid mining would still be profitable with sufficient technology and terrestrial infrastructure but mining some of those quantities in my article just doesn't seem possible. I could have given a longer and more well-cited response so I'm happy to clarify anything unsatisfying in my reply. What are your thoughts now?

Red VS Blue (talk) 06:18, August 31, 2014 (UTC)

Wow, I wasn't expecting such a detailed response! Your reasoning and citations seem solid, assuming amateur knowledge. The logistics of such an operation do seem very complicated, even for the technologically advanced Romans, which grew exponentially by a stellar a degree during the 20th century in that regard. I really am glad to see an author that does research into the feasibility of the technology in his work of fiction.

Truly is amazing how rich in metals our solar system is. What a great time in history to become an engineer!

I've also been wondering about something else in Superpowers. The apparent stagnance of empires' cultures over millenia. Not much is really known about ancient Mayan culture, but that's okay, since you started them off with having a complete revolution, orchestrated by a supergenius, which created a sort of hyper-efficient collectivist, racist culture, which virtually has never changed for the past 2.5 millenia. Roman culture has evolved to become a modern patriotic Republic, greatly empowering each and every citizen. Other than that, they still wear togas, which sums that up. :P

I understand that the theme of the entire alternate timeline is for these massive superpowers to last for such a long time and become very powerful. In the geopolitical sense, this is obviously a maintinence of the status quo, but would it be in the more decentralized cultural sense? There was the Platonic Revolution, which was utterly squashed, but must change come from direct geopolitical action?

Also, why must the internet suck in Superpowers? :P It's nationalized and regulated. Somewhere, perhaps in the asteroid mining article, it said that only citizens of four countries knew about something. That's such a geopolitical restriction of information flow, that just wouldn't be possible in our world due to our internet. Such is a world full of superpowers perhaps.

These aren't really criticisms; just stuff I've thought about while reading Superpowers and want to read your thoughts on.

- anonymous user

Thank you, I pride myself on putting effort into plausibility. Alas, much of what you've been reading in my work of fiction was written a long time ago and I'm working toward scrapping much of that writing. The proper articles start here but I can understand if the modern history is more to your interests. Nevertheless, I'm more than happy to satisfy your curiosity about my old articles.

The general stagnancy of the various cultures is partly deliberate and partly out of laziness during my earlier writing period. In regards to what you mention of Roman culture, the toga at least was a symbol of peace and civilization for the Romans, making it's persistence as the court dress of senators quite likely. However, I've realized that the toga was not in general use even by the point of divergence for the timeline so my articles will be made to account for that fact. As for other aspects of Roman and Maya cultures, I will be studying Byzantine and Chinese history to get ideas for how they will change over time. But change they will. In particular, I'll be removing that ridiculous section of my timeline where the Maya suddenly adopt Nahua culture in its entirety. I don't know what I was thinking with that decision.

From my preliminary research, I believe the Roman fashions will not evolve along the same lines as the Byzantines and that the Christianization of its culture will not mirror the Christianization of Germanic or Byzantine culture in reality. Also, in general, I'm researching ways that types of "grass roots" changes historically came about in culture and technology so that I can write in more developments that originate from average joes instead of from governments (the latter being a common theme in my work that I mean to lessen but still keep to a certain degree, as a result of the relatively great wealth of governments). Anyway, that's just a taste of what I'm thinking about the stagnancy of those cultures as they're written right now.

With that said, I'm always open to suggestions about my timeline. Did you have any ideas you wanted to put forward?

Ah, yes, the Internet. I had fun creating the Roman Internet. I find the idea of the Roman government monopolizing a national network for connecting computers to be extremely likely, given how all higher centers of learning and the military (where the Internet is most likely to originate) are firmly payrolled by the Senate. As its original financers, the Senate would not want to relinquish control over their "creation" and would easily have the funds needed to regulate the Internet and keep it nationalized. Part of what led me to make the Roman Internet the way it is was a certain thought: When I think about the modern UK and its surveillance state, I can't help but imagine what a government with the entire wealth of Europe and more sophisticated computers could and would want to accomplish in regulating the flow of information and of people in its state. In some sense, their Internet would be a modern result of the same motives the Romans had for a thorough Census of their populace.

As you may be thinking, this all means there is no "internet culture" in the Roman Empire as there is now :P So that's something to chew on a little; no memes, cat videos, neknominations, or going viral on youtube.

Hmm, the "something" might be the existence of massive supplies of minerals from space. If I recall correctly, it isn't the citizens of four countries but its the governments (similar to how real governments keep things from their citizens). Still, that detail will be scrapped eventually, although the concept of state secrets will obviously be used elsewhere.

I apologize for the lack of coherence in this post. I'm pretty much just vomiting my thoughts about each topic onto the keyboard. You're posing queries that no one else has brought up before so I'm happy to talk at length about any of these topics but I'll avoid being too long-winded unless there is something in particular you want to hear more about :P

P.S. I like your summaries of my Maya and Romans. I keep hoping to get comments that are poignant but broad, whether critical or laudatory, and those summaries seemed to me to be all of the above.

Red VS Blue (talk) 15:50, September 1, 2014 (UTC)

Glad to hear it! I had read the detailed timeline up to the article before Industrialization, but I guess you've rehauled those, along with eventually everything else apparently. Will check that out.

Sorry if I seem primarily critical of Superpowers. It's easily the best ATL on this wikia, and meets standards beyond that. I've read it and sparsely checked it for the past 2 years, and it's very interesting and enjoyable.

I probably don't know as much about history as you do, and I can't think of anything else I want to comment on at the moment.

I don't want to make an account, but if I comment on your Talk Page again, I want you to it's me, so I'll leave one of my usual internet alias'.

- ThatOneWeirdGuy

Criticism is what I crave - at least, that is what I try to convince myself is true. If any more critiques or comments come to mind when reading Superpowers, then don't hesitate on my account to ask. You've already shown yourself to be observant as well as straightforward with what you notice, so I hope you find more to say in the future. For that, I'll keep your alias in mind.

Red VS Blue (talk) 01:41, September 2, 2014 (UTC)

Something I noticed: Industrialization didn't occur until 150-200 years after the abolishment of slavery in the Roman Empire. The Greeks and Romans had already figured out the steam engine OTL, did they not? The only reason resources were not invested in technology is because those who owned the means of production in agriculture had a ton of slaves. Why be efficient when you can make more money for certain in the short term? Anyways, lack of slaves --> dramatically increased efficiency in agriculture --> surplus --> industrialization. This makes more sense than the Romans just getting it from the Mayans.

Tell me if I'm talking out of my ass.

-ThatOneWeirdGuy

You're mostly on the money for this one. Roman industrialization is another series of events that (imo) should and will be edited out in the ongoing rewrite. Unfortunately, those events are centuries away in the order that I'm rewriting the timeline. Still, you've picked up on another thing that does not make much sense as it currently stands. Also, y ou're right that getting the steam engine from the Maya is unlikely.

However, the point I should correct is that, in OTL, the Romans never figured out the steam engine (at least not the sort of steam engine that resembled any machine that drove the industrial revolution).

As elaboration: A Roman geometer named Hero figured out how to get motion from heat but that discovery is only a necessary as opposed to a sufficient condition for inventing a steam engine. Hero's aeolipile is about as far from a steam engine as a glider is from a helicopter; they both fly and involve similar fundamental principles of physics but the ways they employ them are completely different. To be specific, the aeolipile has more in common with a rocket than the types of steam engines use during the industrial revolution, since it operates by thrust rather than using pistons and pressure differentials (actually making my comparison too generous in terms of the physics involved).

However, the aeolipile is a primitive reaction steam turbine so I can see where you would have heard that it is a steam engine. In historical terms, the important difference is that steam turbines were invented long after the steam engine and the opening stages of the industrial revolution, meaning the aeolipile is not part of the genealogy of a steam engine (probably not even as inspiration).

As for your theory that widespread slavery held back technological progress: you're probably right. I've heard a similar idea in texts on Roman agriculture but I hesitate to believe it in any extreme. Slavery reduces the incentive to devote more resources to trying to find more efficient tools for agriculture but some motivation would remain.

I have more to say on the topic of Rome's industrialization but lack the time at the moment to write it. I'll get to it within a day or two.

Red VS Blue (talk) 17:19, September 15, 2014 (UTC)

So the other thing I wanted to say about Rome's industrialization is something specific about how my rewrite completely changes the introduction of the steam engine to Rome and the resulting industrial revolution. Namely, Rome has no industrial revolution. Slow and steady "industrialization" starts in the 5th century with the invention of an efficient turbine for drawing mechanical power from the flow of an aqueduct and continues until direct hydropower is replaced with generation of electricity for indirectly powering machines.

As for plausibility: simple turbines already existed in the Roman Empire before the PoD of the timeline and the main innovation is just the connection of a similar turbine to an aqueduct in such a way that useful power can be drawn for machinery. If you're interested in this line of discussion, then the page where this is first mentioned is here.

Anyway, I get the sense that in my haste I didn't spend much time on your main point (that slavery causes technological stagnation in terms of labor saving tools) but I hope my response isn't entirely a non sequitur.

Red VS Blue (talk) 22:41, September 15, 2014 (UTC)

Hey, sorry I'm just now getting back to you. I didn't know all that about the aelophile, thanks for telling me. As for your response to slavery slowing technological progress, I don't think there was any incetive at all. The learning back then was all for recreation, as it usually is, but even then no immediate application was ever really thought of. I'm not entirely sure for the reason, but it could be "why invest in technology when you can buy more slaves?" Although, as we saw with the cotton gin, that could lead to an increase in the demand for slaves. I was also trying to drive the point home that efficient agriculture and appropriate social organization leads to a surplus of food, which leads to a demand for stuff other than food, which leads to the pursuit of knowledge, and technology. Sorry if I'm repeating myself, but I think this would apply to the Romans as well. I think this is consistent with European history.

As for industrialization, what's your reasoning for it being so relatively slow in the ATL? Because of slavery? Not arguing that it wouldn't be slow and gradual; I'm just curious.

-ThatOneWeirdGuy

Technological progress in machinery from the 1st to 4th centuries CE would refute the theory that Romans had no incentive to create labor-saving equipment (e.g. crank, conrod, treadwheel crane, hydraulic mining, water turbine). I specifically refer to the sites of Hierapolis, Dolaucothi, and Barbagal as evidence. These mechanisms were newly-invented by Romans to save labor.

However, your theories are likely right - just misapplied to the Roman Empire. Slaves were not the most common laborers for farming or mining (as much as the ancient writers may have wished it to be true). Only in Italy and Africa Proconsularis might slaves have outnumbered free laborers in agriculture.

Your point about an increasing effeciency in agriculture producing surpluses of food that promote the pursuit of things other than feeding oneself is definitely true. That principle applies to the formation of cities and the development of craftsmen as a profession but also dictates the progress of philosophy and technology. Anyway, not only did the Romans have a surplus of food (during their peak) but their ability to satisfy nutritional needs beyond the level of sustenance farming likely exceeded any state until the 1500's (there is a paper by a Walter Scheidel that does this analysis as a measure of economic size).

Although, an interesting counterexample to widespread slavery preventing a surplus of food is Spartan civilization. The Spartans were only capable of devoting their time to warfare because their slaves covered the task of supplying food (it's arbitrary that this freedom from scrounging for food was devoted to fighting instead of the pursuit of knowledge - except that their devotion to fighting was what helped them acquire so many slaves, which doesn't undermine more slaves => more free time). Still, this counterexample only pertains to the pursuit of knowledge in leisure, as opposed to the search for more efficient labor-saving technology.

My reasons for the slowness of industrialization are many, since I can think of multiple factors that would lead to an industrial "evolution" rather than a quick "revolution" (although the industrial revolution in OTL was also gradual in its own way). Slavery is one reason, especially for the lack of change in agricultural technology for the first two-thirds of the 1st millennium CE. Another reason is the lack of competition. Renaissance and Industrial Europe progressed rapidly in part due to the necessity of outcompeting one's equally or more powerful neighbors (a similar situation may have driven the advancements of the Greek city-states and the Chinese kingdoms before and after their periods of unification). By contrast, Rome only faces Persia and has completely overshadowed that oriental lion as early as the late 2nd century. In a similar vein, instead of a large number of governments funding science each in its own direction there is only one government (by analogy, more discoveries can be made in most cases by dozens of small research teams than by one massive research team since there are diminishing returns with size and more ground can be covered by many teams working each on their own projects).

Also, the existence of large dogmatic academic institutions in the Roman Empire (e.g. the Musaeum, Lyceum, Academy) prevents the recognition of discoveries that diverge from these views (hence, I wrote in a major advancement in physics being ignored for two centuries because it offends Aristotelianism). In general, the progress of natural philosophy needs a "Descartes" to throw away the Aristotelian framework (in this ATL, such a person appears in the 8th century CE, leading to a pseudo-Newtonian physics). Even by that point, Rome is missing a rigorous scientific method, calculus, and thermodynamics, all necessary for the kind of machinery that could drive a proper industrial revolution).

However, the reason that the industrialization of Rome is slowed rather than delayed by these factors is that machinery steadily improves, with various industries harnessing the energy stored in the height of water to power these machines. Over several centuries, the technology to efficiently draw hydropower from an aqueduct disseminates throughout Italy, driving an industrialization that progresses over the centuries with few major advances.

Well, that ended up being a little longer than I expected - to properly justify some points - but that covers the major factors for the slow and gradual industrialization in my timeline. What do you think?

Red VS Blue (talk) 20:07, September 24, 2014 (UTC)

I think that all seems very reasonable, and I don't have any arguments to refute any of the points. I hadn't thought about the competition between European powers during the industrial revolution. Perhaps the Romans would have good reason to compete with the Mayans, at least when the world figuratively gets smaller with air travel and electronic communications; when they're not a world apart.

Someone's natural assumption about a scenario where the full Roman Empire lives on might be that they would be centuries ahead of our collective history, with there being no Mideval period, but there are other factors, as you've sharply recognized.

I really do appreciate your responses, but I lack the time to repsond to them soon.

- ThatOneWeirdGuy

Oops, I edited the wrong section. Sorry about that; I hope you can move it.

-ThatOneWeirdGuy

"Blurb"
By all means.

To find the current one, you'll probably have to look through the histories of the various "month" templates. Have a look around the featured timelines lists, you'll find it.

As for where to put it, just put it on a talk page. Will put it up on the templates next time it is to be featured.

Lordganon (talk) 14:41, September 25, 2014 (UTC)

Memory
In the 100th article to your Superpowers TL, you said that it was 1,650 kB long, not including pictures. I'd like to figure this out for my own TL, so do you mind telling me how you did? Thanks, Upvoteanthology (talk) 22:25, November 23, 2014 (UTC)

If memory serves, then I think that I got that number by literally adding the file sizes of every page in my timeline, using the "History" tab that can be accessed near the top of the page. I don't remember if that file size accounts for pictures but if it does, then I would have removed that by finding an average size of pictures and subtracting that amount by the number of pictures I had.

I hope this helps.

Red VS Blue (talk) 22:52, November 23, 2014 (UTC)

Alright, thanks! Love your timeline, by the way. Upvoteanthology (talk) 22:22, November 26, 2014 (UTC)

Numbers ten and under
Should be spelled out.

Bil

EoGuy (talk) 16:38, December 11, 2014 (UTC)

Exceptions
I agree with most of your examples concerning numbers ten and under.

Perhaps I was a bit unclear in my criticism.

I take no criticism personally.

- About Kilometer vs Km-

I was amused that you used km a time or two and was tempted to change it to kilometer - but I restrained myself:)

-About spelt vs spelled-

I generally leave British spelling alone - theatre, labour, learnt, etc.

-Harbour vs harbor-

If the harbor is in the US - like Pearl Harbor in Hawaii - I will change the spelling from harbour to harbor. Otherwise, i generally leave the British spelling.

Bil

EoGuy (talk) 18:22, December 11, 2014 (UTC)

Corrections on talk pages
I don't make any corrections concerning errors on talk pages.

I leave those as is.

Bil

EoGuy (talk) 18:27, December 11, 2014 (UTC)

Superpowers
I think you are the author of this series and always spell out kilometer.

That's what I was referring to.

I generally don't mess with Latin words since I don't know Latin. Esperanto is a different story, though.

Eo is the abbreviation of the word Esperanto. Therefore, I am the Esperanto Guy.

Bil

EoGuy (talk) 19:16, December 11, 2014 (UTC)

I notice that in the world map, Iceland and Svalbard are shown to be Roman territory. It would be nice to be given a proper explanation for why they are not Norse territory, as that would make a lot more sense from both a geographical, and in the case of Iceland, a cultural standpoint.88.95.1.161 12:55, December 15, 2014 (UTC)

I can only guess what world map you are referring to in your comment but if I'm not mistaken in it being this map, then the answer is that Iceland and Svalbard were conceded to Rome after the last world war. However, that world map is no longer part of my timeline due to the complete rewrite that I am doing of Superpowers. My best guess at this point in the rewriting process is that the islands of Svalbard and Iceland will be owned by a Nordic country by the modern era but that is only a guess since I have only rewritten the timeline up to the 11th century AD. The rewrite of my alternate history starts here, if you're interested.

Also, if the place of the Norse people in the timeline is of interest to you, then you may find their first appearance something you'd like to read. These events can be found on this page.

Red VS Blue (talk) 22:11, December 15, 2014 (UTC)

Superpowers
Here's a video should see while your writing superpowers, it might help you with some stuff. Cgl1999 (talk) 06:05, December 21, 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, but why might this be helpful? The facts presented in that video are important for evolutionary history and geohistory but I don't see their direct relevance to the timeline I've written (except for the fact that anyone benefits from knowing this information). Red VS Blue (talk) 07:51, December 21, 2014 (UTC)

OOPS!
I forgot you didn't like "judgment."

Sorry

Bil

EoGuy (talk) 21:51, February 5, 2015 (UTC)

761-835 CE (Superpowers)
Sorry about that. I wasn't paying attention.

Bil

Comment about this video...
Well, I know that you said before that you were on the lookout for people using your material, so....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2O0F5C0Yu5Q At 3:22, I specifically saw one of your maps, and I was actually rather surprised.

Also, unrelated, but I think that you would enjoy that particular YouTube channel.

Hope to see more updates from you!

Rcox1995 (talk) 09:01, April 13, 2015 (UTC)

Wow, you're right! I am also rather surprised by this. Given that the video is nearly two years old and the map is included among a ton of images from google images, I'm tempted not to say anything but I'll give it some thought. I really appreciate you bringing this to my attention!

Also, yes, I think I will enjoy this channel. I'll at least check out the series on Rome :)

Well, expect some major updates starting a month from now! I have plans to add another 200 years before the end of July and will be writing special pages on specific topics during that same period.

I'm glad to hear you're still following my work :)

Red VS Blue (talk) 14:06, April 13, 2015 (UTC)

Understandable. I just noticced it, and I was like "Huh...I've seen this before, haha." It's a decent channel, but it doesn't go too much in-depth, which makes me sad. But it's still not a bad channel.

And oh, good! I've been keeping track of some of the updates, but I'm glad to hear of more. And of course. I still really cannot get enough of this timeline, haha.

Rcox1995 (talk) 06:15, April 14, 2015 (UTC)

Permission for using the war table or whatever it is called
Hello there. I saw the table you used for the Bellum Mundim page in Superpowers. I was wondering if me and Supergamer1 could use the table in there? Please reply on my talk page since I always forget to check back on these :D Erizium (talk) 13:20, May 25, 2015 (UTC)

Alternate spelling of Khaganate
No big deal but my dictionary says qaganate is the alternate spelling.

Bil EoGuy (talk) 01:18, August 22, 2015 (UTC)

Then for once I'm in agreement with your dictionary :P If you read the description of my edit, then you'll see that I also said that qaganate is an alternate spelling of khaganate.

Red VS Blue (talk) 23:38, August 24, 2015 (UTC)

Mate:

God

Bless

You

The Superpowers timeline is one of the most beautifully crafted pieces of althist in exsistence rivalling even that of turtledove's work. I love it, i check for updates (especially now that you've revised the timeline more artistically) every two days. I adore the attention to detail, realistic avenues for progression, and the fact that you dont subscribe to the 'superman' thought pattern of authorship. I look forward to any and all new additions to the story with great anticipation.

P.S. I would really love a bogomil rebellion, followed by a guerilla war that plagues entire dynasties (also a basque one), and is punctuated with accasional bursts of heresy in various places (namely gallia and cimbria) under maybe the sponsorship of the svear kingdom? who may have converted themselves. Just a thought.

144.132.181.176 14:49, November 25, 2015 (UTC)

That's very nice of you to say! Always good to hear from people enjoying the read :)

What is this 'superman' thought pattern of authorship? I'm not familiar with the term.

While no man by the name of Bogomil is born in my althistory, I am looking into ways in which the Bulgars will change over time (any plausible suggestions will without a doubt be considered!). Bursts of heresy within the empire could use some focus as well; I don't see the Svears/Suoenes playing a role in any Roman heresies though since their religions are very far removed from Roman religion.

Thank you for your suggestions! I'm always looking to hear about new ideas for my timeline - any constructive ideas are appreciated!

Red VS Blue (talk) 00:51, November 26, 2015 (UTC)

Superman way of authorship essentially transpires wherin the central focus of the work (usually the protaganist) is peerless and never fails because the 'goodie' cant loose. You have not strictly adhered to this and its a great measure of your skills as an author.

Bogomil heresy need not be the same semantically, but a cathartic sect of christianity that started in argentina, yet finds many converts in bohemia and gaul is not plausible and would serve to counter the ubiquitious nature of papal control, and a few success' in these rebellions could serve to sow internal discontent as the might of rome would be tarnished and the trust in it by her people could wane.

perhaps have the svear convert to christianity (as is historical), and have them eventually convert to a heretical sect (the reason for most protestants coming from northern europe is the germanic culture of autonomy, which meant that the adoption of heresy served to secure autonomy from the papacy. A strong swedish kingdom would surley support heresy in rome, much as saudi arabia does in all its neighbouring nations, supporting organisations like hamas and tthe muslim brotherhood.

The basques should have mention as they origionally formed from disgruntled gallo-romance peasants, perhaps in a continual low intensity conflict?

Bulgars sure are tricky as there are no weak borders for them to slip through.....hmmmm....Perhaps have rome support a bulgar civil war in which the rome supported faction looses, have them resettle many bulgar in thrace so long as they convert, this leds to whatever the hell you wish haha.

Perhaps mention the swahili coast in some way?

idk buddy, just spitballing here, great job, keep up the good work!

stevenligoff1@gmail.com if you want to discuss anything

Help
I see that you have been going through your timeline again and editing things. If you are wanting, I am willing to help if possible.

I also wanted to ask if you were just focusing on refining everything before 1066?

Thanks again!

Rcox1995 (talk) 00:42, February 24, 2016 (UTC)

Yup! I'm refining everything before 1066 based partially on feedback I got from the alternate history forum, partially on reading the Cambridge Ancient History encyclopedia (Volumes 10, 12, 13), and partially on reading the history of philosophy book series by Peter Adamson. All of that took some time but it's give me some ideas for some great changes and helped me fix a number of mistakes I'd made earlier.

That's nice of you to offer! I can think of a few things that would be helpful but, as always, the help I'm most looking for is criticism, especially from people who know  a particular field (e.g. geology, fashion, painting) in detail. Other than that, the tasks I want to work on are research and organization of ideas before writing but those are both things that only I can do for my timeline (unless you have suggestions?). I guess I could also use a word doc with all the dates in point form but that sounds really tedious to create.

Do you have any suggestions? Criticisms? Thoughts on my additions?

Red VS Blue (talk) 01:28, February 24, 2016 (UTC)