Starting Map[]
What map are you going to start with?ProfessorMcG 20:08, April 27, 2010 (UTC)
I got one...Paaaad 21:07, April 27, 2010 (UTC)
The Byzantine Empire was created in the 300's AD. The Roman Empire wasn't even created yet in 500 BC. This is map is inaccurate. We need to restart with a new one.ProfessorMcG 01:50, April 28, 2010 (UTC)
Or change the numbering, I think this is more like 500 AD.Oerwinde 16:09, April 28, 2010 (UTC)
You're numbering backwards. You've gone from 500 BC to 504 BC, which is further back in time. It should be 500 BC to 496 BC. Fegaxeyl 16:42, April 28, 2010 (UTC)
I've just added a new year (504BC) which is wrong. It should be either 504 AD or 496 BC. Its easy to change the AD/BC qualifier, but all the nations/kingdoms mentioned on the opening map are all AD states/people, so I am assuming that we should be talking 500AD onwards Rivendell78 16:46, April 28, 2010 (UTC)
Ya... Sorry about the confusion... The map was 500 AD...
Haha... o.O ... geniusesProfessorMcG 23:44, April 28, 2010 (UTC)
Rule Changes[]
This is the new and improved version, but none of the rules are improved.ProfessorMcG 01:10, April 30, 2010 (UTC)
508[]
The 508 map ignored both 505, 506, and 507 maps! Vandals still exist, Bugrundy and the Franks haven't conquered parts of the Wisigoths, the Byzanthines aren't on their glory.... Fedelede 21:19, April 30, 2010 (UTC)
Name for Roman Empire[]
I know the Byzantine Empire was always the Roman Empire. But it wasn't that EXACTLY. Byzantium was the EASTERN Roman Empire. I wrote that it renamed itself to say that it was no longer the Eastern Roman Empire, but the Roman Empire as a whole.
Slav-Land[]
Sorry, but your idea needed to be shot down. The Slavs and Balts are a group of tribes, they can't be united by one man in one year at this stage.ProfessorMcG 18:20, May 2, 2010 (UTC)
Implications[]
Do you realize what could happen in the future the way this timeline is going? Prussia will never be created, becuase there won't be any Teutonics, therefore a united Germany won't be conqeured Prussians (if the Saxon Empire ever becomes Germany). England will never be conqeured by the Normans. The English language will be entirely different. These are a few things I thought of just now.
Not to mention that rome might still exist in the form of an empire...Paaaad 18:52, May 2, 2010 (UTC)
Romania[]
Romania was one of the names of the Eastern Roman Empire after the fall of the West. It didn't exist as an independent entity until 1866. Basically the Roman Empire encouraging the growth of a nation called Romania would be the equivalent to the USA encouraging the growth of a nation called AmericaOerwinde 20:36, May 2, 2010 (UTC)
But isn't this an alternate timeline, so can't this stuff happen?
== Carthage?==
Carthage hasn't existed for almost 600 years. Carthage rebelling against rome would be rather like Brittany rebelling against france, or Wales against britain. anyway, what was Carthage at this time was actually a Roman colony built on the same site as the original city, so most of the citizens would be Roman. Destroyanator 23:08, May 2, 2010 (UTC)
It makes about as much sense as the Huns emerging in Asia rather than Hungary or the Saxons repeatedly emerging from defeat stronger than they were before.Oerwinde 00:06, May 3, 2010 (UTC)
Ironically, this is happening...in a way.--DaBigUn 00:54, May 3, 2010 (UTC)
Darn, you've finally caught on.ProfessorMcG 01:58, May 3, 2010 (UTC)
This is a picture showing the extent of the Huns, why can't they settle down in a different area? This is an alternate history, just saying...ProfessorMcG 02:05, May 3, 2010 (UTC)
About Carthage, maybe the leader of the region broke off from the Roman Empire, noticing Rome's weakened state, in hopes of creating his own empire, he could've possibly named it Carthago, which is what it was called in Latin. They did speak Latin in the Roman Empire.ProfessorMcG 02:12, May 3, 2010 (UTC)
The Huns originated in Hungary, hence the name. The map shows the extent of Atilla's empire before he died. And thats the idea I had for Carthage. It would be based out of the Roman colony of Carthage, built on the ruins of the Phoenician colony of Carthage. They would be mostly Roman with some phoenician influences, where the current Roman empire would mostly Greek. So there would be cultural differences. Roman Carthage was also founded under the Republic rather than the Empire as well. Oerwinde 03:02, May 3, 2010 (UTC)
The Huns were a group of nomadic pastoral people who, appearing from beyond the Volga, migrated into Europe c. 370 AD. I guess that kind of debunked my theory.ProfessorMcG 03:28, May 3, 2010 (UTC)
I've tried to fix the problem about the Huns, but I'm stumped about Romania, should I just rename it Dacia? They would still speak Latin, and maybe they went through a governmental reform or faced a decree by the real Rome that caused them to change their name.ProfessorMcG 21:12, May 3, 2010 (UTC)
I was actually going to suggest Dacia. That was the Roman name for the region.Oerwinde 08:18, May 4, 2010 (UTC)
Ostrogoths????[]
i may have already explained this, but 99% of the population in what was the Kingdom of the Ostrogoths was roman. why would they revolt against their own country. also, if it was an ambitious roman general ,why would he name his new kingdom after a people who conquered roman territory and killed roman subjects. that would be a enourmous public relations fail. Destroyanator 21:25, May 3, 2010 (UTC)
And whats the deal with the Slavs? You have to understand by saying Slavs we don't mean the Slavic state or Slavic Republic or Slavic Empire we mean isolated, seperate groups of tribes of Slavic descent.ProfessorMcG 21:44, May 3, 2010 (UTC)
Both 526 and 527 are implausableProfessorMcG 22:03, May 3, 2010 (UTC)
Saxons destroying Celts?![]
How can "Arthur the Great" destroy the whole Celtic population in a single YEAR?! With that day's technologies, it would have taken decades, perhaps even centuries. I believe that to be too exaggerated. Fedelede 01:26, May 4, 2010 (UTC)
Whoever is writing the "Arthur the Great" stuff is a moron. Especially decreeing that nothing can be written about him without permission.Oerwinde 08:16, May 4, 2010 (UTC)
Who did the latest year? I LOL'd ProfessorMcG 12:11, May 4, 2010 (UTC)
I figured with the gains the Saxons kept making despite losing serious ground in multiple wars over a 10 year period would require HEAVY losses on the part of the Saxons. Any leader worth his salt would have abandoned those gains long ago for fear of losing control of his people, but Arthur the Great kept going, likely wiping out his own people to gain control over a hostile territory. The Anglo-Saxon British territories took hundreds of years to unify and conquer all of the British Isles. Arthur the Great did it in one. With the extermination of the celts, the British Isles being depopulated and the Saxons having only a few hundred left was the only plausible outcome.Oerwinde 16:42, May 4, 2010 (UTC)
You're right. How many people would be on Ireland now? 120? 140? same on Wales and Scotland. And on England, how many Saxons would be lost with so many multiple wars? The whole British Archipielago would have less than 5000 people. Fedelede 21:09, May 4, 2010 (UTC)
Stop doing that with "Arthur the Great"! he's destroying a numerous and powerful civilization on 2 years, taking the Saxon population from 5,000 to "around 5 million" in 1 year by French citizens... I mean, Calthrina950... that is complete NONESENSE! Plus when you say "Saxons", "Balts", "Slavs", etc. that is not a kingdom. Those are a GROUP OF TRIBES. Fedelede 21:47, May 4, 2010 (UTC)
- Thank you Fedelede, and Oerwinde that's awesome. I'm thinking about making my own map game where I will delete one's post without pause or second thought. I need a starting year, 1430 is Renaissance, could be interesting.ProfessorMcG 23:10, May 4, 2010 (UTC)
- Oh, that would be interesting, McG. Fedelede 23:19, May 4, 2010 (UTC)
- Here is what I have so farProfessorMcG 01:00, May 5, 2010 (UTC)
- Remember the Italian states, like the Republic of Florence, the Republic of Siena, the Papal states, etc. Fedelede 01:29, May 5, 2010 (UTC)
- Haha =) I have it under control.ProfessorMcG 01:51, May 5, 2010 (UTC)
- =( Somehow I saved over it. ??? I am almost back to where I was originally though =)ProfessorMcG 02:16, May 5, 2010 (UTC)
Arthur the Great=urge to kill[]
im normally a very calm person, but the Arthur the Great crap is really pissing me off. (i apoligize for the language). i mean wtf. you're taking all of the fun out of this for everyone else.the whole point of the map game is that anyone can edit anything, so by essentially claiming that no one can do anything to alter british hegemony over the North Atlantic area, you are elevating yourself to some kind of "higher" seat that the rest of us. so please, don't be a douche, and PLEASE, PLEASE, be realistic
thank you Destroyanator 00:18, May 6, 2010 (UTC)
another thought: if you want to make a timeline where a king named Arthur the Great creates a massive British Empire, go ahead. just not in the map game. Destroyanator 00:20, May 6, 2010 (UTC)
536[]
Yes! who was brilliant enough to write "Italia" instead of "Ostgoth" and putting "TRIBES" into Slavs and Balts? That's the less spam-ful year I've seen, including mines. Fedelede 01:56, May 6, 2010 (UTC)
I was going to underline TRIBES in bold, but I thought that would be too much.ProfessorMcG 03:22, May 6, 2010 (UTC)
Future of the Map Games[]
Please check out Forum:Future of the Map Games for an important discussion regarding the map games. Mitro 14:50, May 6, 2010 (UTC)
- Please check this out guys, it is very important. Mitro 15:41, May 7, 2010 (UTC)
Religion[]
I know what has been missing, religion. We need to take into account paganism vs. Christianity.ProfessorMcG 20:49, May 6, 2010 (UTC)
Note on population, religion[]
I'm not playing the game, just observing, but I am beginning to notice that whoever is "developing" France seems to miscalulate the populations of Europe immensly. I'd say there would probably be just under 3/4 million people in Europe at the time, and probably twice that in the Arab world. Saying that millions of people are attracted to France would be a gross miscalculation. It would also be phisically impossible, considering that France couldn't develop enough land to feed even a fraction of that population. Also, Muhammed has yet to be born for 200 years, so there is no muslim religion as of yet.
PS keep in mind that everything outside of the former roman empire is going to be pagan, not to mention most of Britain, northern France, and the Germanies.
BoredMatt 01:59, May 9, 2010 (UTC)BoredMatt
Completely right. Islam did not exist till the 7th century, almost 100 years in the future of this. Muhammad wasn't even ALIVE on the 540's. But... BoredMatt, I think on the pre-islamic era, less people lived on the Arabic peninsula than on Europe... Fedelede 02:29, May 9, 2010 (UTC)
France was part of the Roman Empire(Gaul). But whoever set up the papacy to start in 540-something is completely wrong. The first Pope was in the 1st century, not sixth. ProfessorMcG 05:09, May 9, 2010 (UTC)
They also didn't pay attention to the pope dying two years earlier and having a Roman puppet pope put in place. Also, the king of Italia doesn't have control of Rome, so how can he cede it and Roman controlled italy to the pope? I think we need to take a step back.Oerwinde 07:45, May 9, 2010 (UTC)
France[]
The king freeing all the peasants and granting them land and money would:
- A) Be prohibitively expensive, and
- B) Cause the nobles to rise up and kill the king.
In other words, extremely implausible.Oerwinde 07:51, May 9, 2010 (UTC)
Expansion?[]
When (and if) we get there, could we possibly expland into asia, africa, America, etc.?
Western Asie (i.e: Middle East, Arabian Pen., Parts of Russia) yes. Northern Africa (i.e: the Maghreb and Egypt) i thin too. America, east Asia, south Africa, Oceania (Australia), etc. No! on my opinion Fedelede 12:47, May 9, 2010 (UTC)
Take a Step Back?[]
The past few years have gotten out of control.ProfessorMcG 13:56, May 9, 2010 (UTC)
- I think we need to go back to 540. The situation in italy completely ignored what happened after that with the Papacy and Lombardy, etc.Oerwinde 16:39, May 9, 2010 (UTC)
- Sounds good to me, but should we wait and ask others.ProfessorMcG 17:24, May 9, 2010 (UTC)
Janissaries?[]
Janissaries were Turkish infantry, why would the Danes have them? If by janissaries you mean a conscripted professional army I think there should be a different name.--Oerwinde 19:49, May 9, 2010 (UTC)
Thats what I thought but somebody was calling the slave/soldier thingy janissaries before I started editing, so I though I'd just continue it.
How about something like Soldater fra Midgard, or Soldiers of Midgard, or Odinsværd/Sværd af Odin, or Sword of Odin, since the norselands won't be converted to Christianity till the 1200s.Oerwinde 23:30, May 9, 2010 (UTC)
Yea I was just thinking thralls (slaves).
Denmark?[]
Woa, wait. How can Denmark be suddenly de world's power? that has no sense
- Actually it sorta dose...I mean no one country or alliance has YET to stand up to them, or even challenge them. Also it has been written for almost 30 post that the Danes have France and Britannia as allies, along with Poland and a I believe Bavaria.I dont know why no one has missed with them yet, but hay...I aint going to post just yet in this one.--DaBigUn 21:20, May 16, 2010 (UTC)
- The only real issue I have is Railroads. It took like what? 10 years between beginning to research greek steam technology to having a rail system connect all of scandinavia? From beginning his research to having a working steam engine I'd say would be about 3-5 years minimum, Then adapting it for practical use would be another 2-3 years minimum. Designing a working steam locomotive would be another 2-3 years, with another 1-2 to build it. Connecting say Oslo to Stockholm with a rail line would be another 2-3 years. Having all of scandinavia connected by rail lines and enough trains to make it useful would likely take another 10-20 years. So in total it should be at least 20-35 years between beginning to research to having it become prevalent. And thats HUGELY optimistic. OTL it took nearly 300 years from beginning research to having the first basic rail system. I'd say with research beginning in 565, by about 800 or so we would see the beginnings of a major rail network. I mean using rails as a form of transport didn't even become prevallent until the 1300s. 250 years before the first steam engine was used to power something.Oerwinde 00:03, May 17, 2010 (UTC)
Ya I agree we need to take a step back. Denmark can't go from a more-or-less hunter-gatherer existance to a superpower in 70 years. I've been "playing" as Denmark up until recently, and we need to set it back to 550 at the least.
Not to mention the implausiblity of making a railroad in 570 AD.
BoredMatt 00:24, May 17, 2010 (UTC)BoredMatt
I've created an alliance against the Danes and I tried to destroy railroads without saying flatout you're an idiot to them but they bounced back in one year.ProfessorMcG 01:18, May 17, 2010 (UTC)
Turkey?[]
Why Turkey? They should call it Anatolia. Turkey was the name used when the Muslim Turks settled on Anatolia. Plus, Constantinople has always been on Greece, all the way till the Ottomans. It should be either Byzantium, Greece or (a VERY unlikely option) Anatolia (It's unlikely because of Greece and Anatolia, Anatolia is the poorest). Fedelede 01:06, May 22, 2010 (UTC)
Note[]
Guys, STOP POSTING ON MY YEARS. I'm going to change the posts to make them new years. Fedelede 03:17, May 22, 2010 (UTC)
Catalonia[]
Catalonia had a virtually monopoly on trade in the Mediterranean. you can't destroy their economy with taxes in a year. and after they went to war, the Catalonian merchants would just ignore the Italian taxes. also, trying to tax every ship in the Mediterranean would be impossible, not to mention stupid. it would cost more money than it would bring in. oh, and you can't modernize in a year Destroyanator 03:50, May 22, 2010 (UTC)
The Rennaissance?[]
Seriously? 1000 years early?Oerwinde 06:49, May 22, 2010 (UTC)
Well, we are technologically 1000 years early. Hungary with 50 million population, the early periodic table... Fedelede 13:50, May 22, 2010 (UTC)
In this TL, the dark ages were much less serious. in OTL, the dark ages stopped technological advancement for almost 1000. so it's certainly possible. Destroyanator 15:25, May 22, 2010 (UTC)
- The Dark Ages were from the fall of Rome in 500AD until the rennaissance in the 1500s. Its not even that the Dark Ages were less serious, its that that point of history was entirely bypassed.Oerwinde 05:18, May 23, 2010 (UTC)
Anatolia attacks Ireland?[]
How does that even work? It would be way too hard and stressing to even sustain a colony that far away let alone how impossible it is for an entire army to travel up from Anatolia to Ireland in one year in the first place. Smallpox 15:14, May 22, 2010 (UTC)
Ireland is Neutral and had NOTHING to do with Anatolia, I call BS and also call Alien Space Bat on that. Why would the alliance stop attacking? They had the uper hand in the war and they were seeking Mediterranean land, not to have less taxes. And to top it all off it was posted that they would stop at nothing short of a dissolution of Italy Empires and France Empires.--DaBigUn 18:41, May 22, 2010 (UTC)
Alliances[]
It has come to my attention that no one that has posted after the invasion of Netherlands (named Holland)noticed that they had a Mutual defense and aid packed with Hungary,Poland, Bavaria and the the Anotola, Greece, and the north African nation where all included later in that treaty. so why did NO ONE come to their aid? and if they broke up then at least mention it and give some reasonable explanation 'WHY'.--DaBigUn 18:57, May 22, 2010 (UTC)
Population?[]
Could we have some new population numbers for all the European-map area Countries? I don't know a lot about this stuff myself so please, if you could.Smallpox 04:30, May 23, 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, definitely needed, France sending a small force of 40,000 troops to africa to help fight pirates made me laugh. Thats like considering a force of 8 million small nowadays.Oerwinde 05:55, May 23, 2010 (UTC)
Technology[]
Technology does not spread as quickly as it is portrayed. the French would be hard-pressed to discover how explosive shells and rockets work in a year, let alone improve on their design. the same thing goes for Catalonian industrial techniquesDestroyanator 17:14, May 23, 2010 (UTC)
How would France know it was Catalonia that stole it's technology? Destroyanator 17:14, May 23, 2010 (UTC)
We are running into the same thing as before...it has become to improbable (Flintlock Rifles in the year 636, LMAO NOOOOOO).--DaBigUn 20:06, May 23, 2010 (UTC)
Muslim Caliphate?[]
How could the Muslim Caliphate go out of Arabia? There were walls, and hundreds of thousands of soldiers... A group of recently unified Arabic tribes couldn't defeat the whole and prepared coallition of Persians, Egyptians, Nabateans, Assyrians, Syrians, and Babylonians. It's like... 5 Arabic soldiers for each 50 soldiers from the coallition!
THE MUSLIMS CAN'T REBUILD THEIR FLEET THAT QUICKLY!!!! also, you can't just adopt someone else's technology in a year. not only that, at this point, the navies of the nations of the western mediterranean would have such powerful navies, with such a long naval tradition, that you can't build a navy that is more powerful than theirs in a year. they just wouldn't have enough trained seamen. also, the Italian navy would be strong enough to repel these raider without breaking a sweat.
AND NOW SOMEONE IGNORED MY POST AND JUST CONTINUED LIKE IF THE MUSLIM CALIPHATE HADN'T COLLAPSSED! I believe we should step back till the Muslim Caliphate appeared. Fedelede 01:14, May 24, 2010 (UTC)
I think we should just restart from like OTL 1500, I mean tank and firebombs in our current age? We're only 1000 years ahead, so it should be 1600's tech level, what the heck? Smallpox 01:54, May 24, 2010 (UTC)
MAPS[]
This is called a map game, yet there seems to be no map's after 652. Now that is completely defeating the purpose of the game.--DaBigUn 01:48, May 24, 2010 (UTC)
OK, well now ther is bt the game has turned into a quagmire of improbability and impossibility. I say no more open map games, like asiging people nations and such, much like the Ally,Axis,Communist map game.--DaBigUn 03:02, May 24, 2010 (UTC)
You're right. The Ally, Axis and Communism map game is the least discussed map game in history, you know? I call the Ostgoth Kingdom if we restart
P.S: I know, I'm just joking. Or maybe not?