AltHistory Scenario #11: What if the Roman Empire Never Fell?

Ooooh, this is a popular one. What if one of the largest contiguous empire's in all of history, home to great art (stolen from the Greeks), great literature (also stolen from the Greeks), military prowess (later taken from the Germans and Gauls and other barbarians) and vast wealth (taken from everyone not Roman) didn't finally fall in 467 AD when some Goths just got rid of the last Western Roman Emperor and the long, messy and very violent process of building the nation-state we know today began. To many people, seeing the stability, power and prestige of the Roman Empire, and all the chaos that came after it fell, it's fair to imagine what would happen had it survived. So that's what I'm going to do today!

However, I'll be honest, this could be one of the most implausible scenarios I've ever devised, and the reasons will be clear by the time I get down to the "Conclusion" part of the article at the end. Also, unlike usual, I may not do a lot of explaining, as this article is already late, and Wikipedia is a couple clicks away... so let's get going!

I'm already late, so let's not take any more time! Move, move, move!

Point of Divergence

First, as all Roman AH scenarios point out, this is if the whole Roman Empire didn't fall. Technically, the Byzantine Empire was the Eastern Roman Empire, and that lasted up until the 15th century when the Turks finally captured Constantinople, so, yeah...

There are several points in the history of the Empire where I could start from. Maybe Augustus' son survived, or maybe Constantine didn't divide the Empire into East and West, or maybe Caligula was a better emperor... but you know what, I'm not going to do any of it. Let's make it a bit more interesting, and instead, after the death of Augustus before he could name a heir, the Senate, which had been mostly sidelined under the first Emperor, decided to assert itself to say that only they could choose the First Citizen, or Principes, of the Empire. While the army, the aristocracy and the plebeians would all have their own candidate at different times, the Senate would be the decider.

Uhhhh... no, not him.

Immediate Consequences

For a while, this may not be as easy to put into practice as many would think. Maybe an emperor would decide that his son, no matter how smart or dumb he was, would be perfect to take over, no matter what the Senate says. Or maybe an army fighting the Germans would think their general would be better than some politician that never left Italy as the big cheese. Eventually, possibly after a civil war or two, it would be confirmed that the Senate was in charge of choosing the Emperor.

It's fair to say that if the Senate was in charge of naming the Emperor, the Emperor may end up mostly coming from the senatorial classes more often than not. However, I feel that that in this case, a psudeo-papal election style government system would be established, but could also mean that the Emperor would be more an administrator over time, rather than a primarily military officer, priest or judge, with these roles eventually devolved over the years to other senatorially elected positions.

Something the Canadian Senate wishes would happen right now...

However, the Emperor could still formulate policy, and without having to worry (too much) about soldiers and generals marching on Rome, a more aggressive expansion policy in Germania would take place, pushing the border of the Empire from the Rhine to the Elbe, bringing a huge area that in our history was the breading ground of the "barbarians" that helped bring down the Empire. Further expansion in any direction would be harder, with the Picts in Scotland, the icey mountains of Scandinavia, the vast open stretches of steppe and prairie in Poland and Ukraine, the Persians in Iran, and the Sahara desert in Africa all effectively blocking Roman influence to where it is.

The next major challenge to the position of the Roman Empire would be the rise of Christianity, and the growing movement to replace the polytheistic religion of Rome with the One True God of Christianity (and Judaism, though that might be overlooked). For a while, Roman leaders and the Senate would be hostile to this new religion that threatened there power base, but by 300 AD the issue would be more or less resolved, most likely with Christianity being accepted as a major religion, but not the official religion of the Empire. Since the Emperor was no longer the Pontifix Maximus as Augustus had been (and made the position of Emperor and Pontefix Maximus one and the same), the Emperor himself would not be beholden to defend the religion of Rome.

Or just give the job to Francis. He seems to know what he's doing.

Later Consequences

With the majority of the Roman Empire secure, shorter borders to defend, and a fairly stable government, it's not hard to see Rome lasting a bit longer than in our timeline. However, I don't think Rome would become a world spanning colossus as you see in many timelines (Superpowers on the Alt History Wikia comes to mind). Eventually, by the 400 AD, there would be troubles. the Sucilds in Persia would begin to pose a serious threat, as would the Huns roaring off the Central Asian steepe. The military, primarily an infantry force for hundreds of years, would be slow to adapt to the swifter, more destructive horse archer tactics of the Huns.

With the raiding in profitable areas of Germanica and the Black Sea, and a major break out threatening the wealthy center of Constantinople (not the main capital, but a major city and administrative region nevertheless), what would be OTL Berlin (Berlinicus? I don't know...), and Rome itself could lead to crisis and revolt, and the outbreak of new civil wars between different governors, generals, and the central government in Rome. Chunks of the Empire, such as Germania, Britannia, Egypt, Anatolia, and Spain, would break off as their own "empires," with their own senate and electoral system, pushing Roman borders back to Italy, Gaul, North Africa, the Balkans and Greece. While not all these nations would survive, many would remain unified and independent for decades, if not centuries, which would spur an earlier nationalist movement based on the old "successor empires" of the Roman Empire.

And maybe only a slight uptick in the number of people stabbed on the floor of the Senate. Who knows?

The next hundred years would be a story of decline, failed attempts to reclaim the broken off areas, and trying to repair the damage from the Huns. By 600 AD, much needed reforms will have taken place, and the now smaller Roman Empire is in a much better position. Any talk to reclaiming the full breadth of the Empire is just that, talk. The Emperor and Senate in Rome, which had taken a beating (and now had walls around it for the first time since the days of the Punic Wars) is still strong within the Empire, and with a reformed military, able to hold their own against the successor states, maybe even claiming more land back in time. Christianity would also be a major factor in the Empire at this time, with different people claiming they represent the true wishes of Jesus and God, leading to more strife that some divisive emperors would try to use to their advantage to pit one group against another, the naive Emperors try to ignore it, and the smart/lucky/uninterested would just let the church sort it out. In the end, there would be no one-unified church, instead several larger sects set up in places like London, Constantinople, Rome, Barcelona, and Berlin.

The process of reform, prosperity, crisis, fall, and rebuilding would take place multiple times over the next few hundred years. North Africa, along with the successor Egypt, would fall to the Islamic Arab armies in the mid 700s, and Gaul would eventually break away in the 900s. After the new millennium, Greece and the Balkans would also begin to leave the Empire, leaving just Italy for Rome. This would still be the wealthiest part of the empire, as most of the trade and goods went through Italy to go anywhere else, and a formerly farm driven economy would be replaced with a more mercantile, manufacturing economy. Think Venice, just over the whole boot of Italy and not a little swampy inlet in the north.

Because who thought building a city on the water was a good idea?

Many different modifications to the government would have taken place by now: centralization, de-centralization, more provinces, fewer provinces, more senators, less senators. But the main theme is that the Roman Empire was willing to reform when it needed to most, and would continue to do that. In the 1200s, as Crusade fever swept Europe, reformed Roman Armies, now focused more on heavily armored knights and a powerful navy, would lead the way more times than not. From the sands of the Levant to the hills of Spain to the Nile, new Roman Legions would march again, though not as conquerers (most of the time) but Warriors of the Cross (maybe).

After the Black Death, Italy would be severely underpopulated, as were many of the successor states of the old Empire, though many had now been reformed into nations like France, Germany, and Spain. While battles would take place between these nations, for the most part they were more likely to work with each other than anything else, the higher elites maintaining Latin as one of two or more languages many of these elites would speak. Latin would remain the main language of diplomacy and trade in Europe right until almost the present. After the set back of the Black Death, the economies of these nations would slowly recover.

After of course all the bodies are gotten rid of. Even those not quite dead.

Culture would also take a different path. Without a "Dark Age" to stunt the continuation of classical learning, art and literature, culture might develop both quicker and slower at the same time. Experimentation with ideas and technology from the past would be frowned upon, especially when they had proven their worth over the centuries, but by the 1200s, a Renaissance would emerge. This would be different, and not as a "rebirth" of ancient cultures, but new experimentation, sciences and arts would appear, similar to the Age of Reason OTL. The Leonardo da Vinci's and Rembrandt's, along with Newton's and Galileo's,  would appear sooner than later. Roman Italy would be the prime location for this to happen, as in OTL, due to the wealth and trade the peninsula has, as well as being home of where most of the surviving. Eventually democracy would come, and the Senate would become an elected body, much like the Assembly's that had been used 2000 years before in the old Republic.

After that... well, I don't know. Colonization of the New World would most likely not involve Italy to any great degree, like in OTL. The Industrial Revolution may not start in Italy either, as places like Germany, Britain, and Anatolia would be in a better position resource wise. By the modern era, Roman Italy would be a Middle Power, still wealthy, a tourist hotspot, with a moderate navy to control the central Mediterranean, and a weaker army and air force. However, the Emperor is still elected by the vote in the Senate, and the majority of people still speak Latin.

Thanks for giving that away, you stultus. 

Conclusion

Yeah, this is really one of the more implausible AH's I've done, but also perhaps the most realistic version of "What if the Roman Empire never fell?" I just can't think of a feasible scenario where the Roman Empire can last, well, forever. The government was unstable, the taxes got to high, Christianity destroyed the old religion but never fully replaced it, the barbarians were at the gates, the wealthiest part of the Empire broke away, there was lead in the water pipes.

This article really skims over a lot, and a few things I missed. Feudalism may or may not happen (possibly, but only when the big Empire starts crumbling), and my version of the Renaissance may never happen, and I just used the modern names of places because I didn't have my history text book handy.

YES, I'M AWARE WIKIPEDIA WAS RIGHT THERE TOO, SHUT UP!

So this brings me to my feeling of Empire's: while they are strong at one point, they eventually have to fall. There has never been a case where an Empire, after reaching it's apex, holding onto that position until the present. The Roman, Chinese, Mongol, Spanish, French, and British Empires, and all the other smaller ones, they all rose, stayed at the top for a while, then collapsed, either through war, disease, strife, reform or, in the case of the French and British, the cost became too much.

Really, the question shouldn't be "What if the Roman Empire never fell," but "How can the Roman Empire never fall?"

Editorial: A Look Back at My First AH Timeline, "French Trafalgar, British Waterloo"

Way, way, way back when I started in Alternate history back in High School (okay, it was only seven years ago, but still!), I started a timeline at the Alternate History Wikia called French Trafalgar, British Waterloo (also known as FTBW), which since then has had over 230 pages in the category that fleshes out the world that I created. It also is a featured alternate history on the Wikia, and won several Sterling Awards, and is still considered my pride and joy.

That said, looking back on it now, having finished a Bachelor of Arts in History and English, I realize that there are some problems with it, mostly due to it being my first alternate history, and some things that I didn't realize when I started. So, I decided to go over it, and pick out a few things...

Because if there is something I like doing, it's going over my old stuff to see all the bugs and terrible things I did back then,

1. Better POD

As the title suggests, the Battle of Trafalgar is the major tipping point, where the French Navy defeats the Royal Navy under Admiral Horatio Nelson. Trafalgar is such a big part of British lore, and the fact that from 1805 until 1945, the British Navy was recognized to rule the waves of the world, and built a massive empire based on that control of the seas. So, if Trafalgar turned out different, it should have been a huge blow to the British, right?

After a few years of research on the Napoleonic Wars, I'm starting to think that no, it most likely wouldn't have been the point when Napoleon could have won the war. For one thing, when Trafalgar was taking place in October 1805, Napoleon had already turned his army to Central Europe, defeating the Austrians at the Battle of Ulm. So it wasn't possible for Napoleon to take advantage of the temporary set back of the Royal Navy to invade England. Not to mention that the fleet Nelson had was only a small part of the larger navy, and there would be more than enough ships to still prevent the French from invading.

Even though, really, you could wipe out all those ships with a match.

The problem is that I don't know if there would have been many better chances for the Napoleonic Wars to change. Maybe if the Treaty of Amiens had lasted longer, allowed Napoleon a chance to build up a navy or ensure that the rest of Europe wouldn't rise up, then possibly Trafalgar could have been decisive. Possibly the only way that Napoleon could have won the war was just keep winning battles of whatever coalition the British paid to rise up, and keep his attention focused on Western Europe. No occupation of Spain (leading to the Peninsular War), no invasion of Russia in 1812, no trying to replace every monarch in Europe with a Bonaparte. Maybe then the British could tire from the war, and eventually make peace. But knowing the British, that would be a tall order. They hadn't let a little thing like Hitler taking all of Europe to stop them from giving in (though that was more Churchill's speech making and bull dog will than anything else), so could enough costly defeats convince the British to give in? That's a good question, and possibly a better POD in the long run.

2. Too Much Focus on Big Name People

At the very beginning of the TL, the name Marshal Micheal Ney pops up. A lot. Back then, that name was one of the first besides Napoleon that I knew on the French side of the war, so I basically made him the man that would make the world change to what I wanted it to be: a large, stable French Empire surviving to the modern day. I did that a lot, and it's quite clear throughout the entire TL, in all the lists I made of major Presidents, Prime Ministers, famous people. Always big names in our history, just with a different job title. President Tom Hanks anyone?

"Life is like the US Presidency... you just never know what you are going to get. HANKS 2016!"

There is only one "major" fictional person I added, and it was the third Emperor of the Napoleonic Empire, the son of Napoleon II, who in OTL died at the age of 18, having never married, had kids, or even spoken French. So I made a new one, but then killed him off when he was younger to then go back to "real" people, namely the IRL Napoleon III, the nephew of the first. However, I did use the Butterfly effect to a degree, as I usually changed the years when born and died from their IRL dates. I'm not a lazy alternate historian. Just... a bit distracted.

I know why I didn't do that much: I wanted pictures of people to put beside the names, espeically of Emperors and Kings and Presidents. But I really should have been more willing to make more fictional people. I went half way to this later when I started digging deep into the lists of MPs in Britain to pick the man who would be the Dictator of a National Socialist UK in my alternate World War 2, in this case John Beckett, a British Labor and Fascist leader. Most important to me: he had a picture. In future alternate histories on the Wikia (if I get around to working on them...) I'd be more willing to try to use more fictional people, if at least based on IRL people.

But there are people you just have to mention. Like this guy.. uhh... what's his name again?

3. Short and Sweet Country/People/Event Profiles

The thing that pains me the most when I look at FTBW is all the red links that still exist. I want to go back and flesh out all those points that at the time I thought would be important: battles, treaties, big names, etc. etc. And I've done alright at some of them, especially the wars, but there are also so many articles I started that consist of an infobox I copy-pasted from the previous nation, with a few edits, and a "WIP" notice on top, if I even remembered that. Oh, and categories. If I didn't do them, the chief admin and editor Lordganon would swoop in and do it for me. I still think he mutters "Oh God damnit" every time I forget a category. Oops. Sorry.

However, after I did that, I moved on to the next one, and then never came back to flesh it out. Many of those pages have been WIPs for years at this point, mostly just waiting for me to come back to fill it out. But I wanted to make each one a big, definitive history of that nation in my universe. Every. Single. One. Now I realize it makes sense to do it for the French Empire, the United States, and Russia, but not for Switzerland, Hispaniola, or Mozambique. So if and when I do go back, that is most likely what I will do. Just make a short, sweet, and simple history of each nation.

Because everyone wants to know the history of the country with the AK-47 on the flag.

The same goes for the people. Every US President on my list has an article, just no information besides the infobox. I should try to at least work on a brief synopsis of their life.

4. Trying to Get Other People to Help

This is perhaps one of the more recent problems I've had. I go on the chat for the Wikia, I get a few people go "OMG, TB SHOWED UP!" and then some people say "I really liked your FTBW timeline." At that point I'm both proud and excited. Then I ask if they would be interested in helping out. Usually it's a yes, especially when they know more of a certain subject than I know, like sports, movies, Asian and African history. But then nothing ever happens. And I get sad.

I should know better by now. FTBW is not 1983: Doomsday, a collaborative timeline that has been worked on by hundreds of people over the years. FTBW is my timeline, the one that helped develop me as an alternate historian. I shouldn't be looking or begging for help. I should just work on it, and stop trying to get other people to help me. I won't turn down anyone asking if they can submit something, but I shouldn't be soliciting people to help me.

Yes, I should listen to the actor that everyone thinks ruined Indiana Jones and Transformers!

5. Actually Go Back And Work On It

The previous point leads into this one: the fact that since 2012, I really haven't done more than add an article here, add a picture there. The timeline kind of stops dead in 2011, so there is over four years I need to add on to make it current.

The problem is that my interests seem to change on a dime. For a while I was working on other projects on the Wikia like my Choose Your Own Alternate History, projects off the Wikia like my Fallout Fanfic, school, family, work, video games... so many things that want my attention. So things like FTBW, which I still really enjoy, just get's shunted down the list. I have notes everywhere in books of ideas I wanted to add into FTBW, but most of them are still there, waiting for me to do something.

Someday, I plan to go back. Maybe not a full time thing like when I was in High School, but maybe something where I add a post a day. Edit the first pages to make it sound better. Standardize the maps. Flesh out the culture and the world I created. Someday, maybe in the future, I might even go and write short stories based on the universe I created. It's an idea I've toyed with for a long time now, and something that I may eventually do. But I want to finish FTBW. Someday.

I'll think of a funny caption tomorrow.

Fictional AltHistory Scenario #1: Fallout, Part One

If you have been reading this blog at all, you would most likely know that I'm a huge fan of Fallout. No, not the radioactive substance or one of the bajillion bands with the name. Though I'm sure some of them might be good, and, well, it did get the name from the former... But anyway, I'm taking Fallout: The Post Nuclear Role Playing Game, first released from Interplay in 1997, with the next instalment coming out on November 10.

So, in a slight change of pace from what I have been doing here, instead of doing an alternate history on a real historical event, I want to take a stab at writing an alternate history of a fictional universe. And better yet, since there are multiple canon games (Fallout, Fallout 2, Fallout 3, and Fallout: New Vegas), I can make at least four separate scenarios. Yay for another multi-part series!

Yeah... not even going to bother getting into the alternate history where these games were made...

Now, these scenarios will be a bit more limited than some of my other, globe spanning alternate history scenario, instead mostly focusing on the remains of post-apocalyptic America, as that is the setting and place where Fallout takes place. And what better place to start than with the first game, and ask "What if the Master's Plan succeeded?"

WARNING: Spoilers for a nearly 20 year old game are coming! So if you haven't played Fallout, but you want to, you might as well go close this. Maybe read my scenario for what happens if the USSR never get's the atomic bomb?

Either way, this song will fit. Of course.

Point of Divergence

For those of you who haven't played the original, turn based classic RPG yet, a brief summary of the plot of Fallout. You, a simple survivor of the nuclear war of 2077, are sent on a dangerous mission in 2161. The water chip that controls the machines to make clean water in your home, Vault 13, has malfunctioned, and the Overseer has chosen you to go find another one. However, a small problem cropped up when you start meeting big, massive, green skinned, super strong, minigun and plasma rifle wielding super-mutants, the result of a toxic, painful and unpredictable experiment from before the Nuclear war called the Forced Evolutionary Virus. Searching for the source of the super mutants, you find an even more evil plot to kill or enslave all of humanity, turning the best (i.e. non-irradiated, so mostly Vault dwellers) into more super mutants to take over the world. And all of this is lead by a horribly mutated creature known as "The Master," and his vision of "Unity," to end suffering and war... by causing suffering and war. Sure, he might be pretty smart, but I don't think he thought that through.

Ummm... that's The Master from Doctor Who, as played by John Simms. Not the right guy here...

Anyway, in order to win the game, you need to defeat both the Master, in his secret vault in the middle of the Boneyard, the ruins of Los Angeles, and bury the facility with the FEV that's commanded the Lieutenant, one of the smartest super mutants to come out of being "dipped." Do those things, and a winner is you!

However, Fallout is a notoriously brutal game, and it's not uncommon for your character to die, forcing you to replay a COUPLE HOURS OF THE GAME BECAUSE YOU FORGOT TO SAVE AND THIS IS WAS THE TIME BEFORE AUTO SAVE SO YOU HAVE TO GO BACK AND FIGHT THE GOD-DAMNED DEATHCLAWS AGAIN AND AHHHHHHHH!!!!!

Peek a boo!

So, that could easily be a POD: your character dies in the Wasteland, the Master wins, and that's that. But that's too easy for me. Instead, let's take door number two. Because while Fallout can be tough, it's designed not only for multiple playthroughs, but multiple styles of play: a sneaky thief character, a blunt, fist and heavy guns guy, or a smooth taking diplomat that only kills when his words fail. And right at the very end, it even offers you a choice: either kill the Master, or join him. So why don't we say the Vault Dweller joins the Master on his quest of Wasteland unification?

Immediate Consequences

Following the events as outlined in the cutscene at the end of Fallout that has Ron Pearlman narrate the ending as you left the Wasteland, things look pretty bleak. The ghoul city of Necropolis has been wiped out; the Followers of the Apocalypse and the entire Boneyard is destroyed and enslaved; Shady Sands, the future capital of the New California Republic, is razed; Junktown, another settlement, also destroyed; The Hub, a major trading post, is abandoned in the face of the mutants... and Vault 13 has been taken over, it's inhabitants taken to the Mariposa Military base and converted into super mutants.

Basically this. Everywhere.

This is achieved through the super mutant's healing ability, their tough skin, and competent leaders (as well as an aggressive, seemingly angry and hostile manner), which means that it would take more than a few mercenaries in a town, or a group of farmers with rusty guns or knifes, to take down a 10 foot tall, 800 pound, over muscled behemoth of a man, usually carrying a minigun, flamethrower, plasma or laser rifle.

In a cut mission, there is a traitor in the reclusive, technology obsessed Brotherhood of Steel that betrays the BoS to the Master. Since it wasn't part of the game, instead I'm going to say that the Brotherhood is about the only human faction that survives against the Super mutant hordes with their access to pre-war technology, including power armor, advanced weapons, and other tech, but eventually they would be overwhelmed and destroyed, though it would cost both sides dearly.

The Core Region wasteland (California, Nevada and the rest of the South-western US) is almost entirely occupied by the Master's army by 2180. The few humans to survive his wrath are no longer allowed to reproduce, meaning that this would be the last generation of human's in this part of the world. With his capital in the Cathedral in the middle of the Boneyard, the Master begins plotting his next moves; expansion, to bring Unity to the entire wasteland, moving east over the Rocky Mountains, sweeping everything before them. It seem's that the Master's plan is in full force.

Well, no, that's The Master, a 2012 movie I haven't seen...

Later Consequences

However, two major problems arise, which lead to the downfall of the Master's Empire. The first was another human faction that no one knows about, the Enclave. The remnants of the US government and Army after the Great War, they retreated to one of the last oil rigs, deep in the Pacific Ocean. For decades the Enclave slowly gathered strength, investing in new technologies including better weapons and power armor. Using the pre-war designed VOTL aircraft known as "Vertibirds," The Enclave begins scouting the wasteland, and the scouts are horrified at what they find.

With the super mutants now a huge threat (and with the first couple of teams sent to kill them in turn being killed or captured and dipped), and unable to access the FEV virus so they could reverse-engineer it, the Enclave instead retreats back to the rig. But they have learned a secret, one that in the end will allow the Enclave to emerge victorious.

And that secret can be found in the main game, and can even be used in the final confrontation with The Master, ending the battle in a peaceful manner.

The super mutants are infertile.

And he has such a good chance to going out with the high school prom queen...

The FEV virus does a lot of weird things to the human body, and it can be almost different between one person and another. While one person may get super strength, another may be killed. While some, like the Master and the Lieutenant had their intelligence increased, in most it reduces it. Some people are turned into terrifying centaurs, made up of Human and Canine limbs in some demented Kindergarten project. And some times, as in the case of Harold, it might not even turn people into Super Mutants, but completely unique mutations.

However, in all cases, it turns the resultant mutant is sterile. No matter the romantic candlelight or soft music, it just ain't happening.

I'd think The Master would learn this sooner or later. And that will be a huge blow to the Master. Sure, his creations could live in harsher conditions than humans, as well as live many times longer than the starving, de-hydrated, irradiated human inhabitants of the Wasteland, which, as part of the Master's plan, were all being sterilized as well. Basically the Master was not only relying on a flawed solider, but was actively destroying the only way to naturally reproduce humans to turn into super mutants. Basically... oops.

Uhhh... That's Master Chief from Halo. Even if he wanted to, we'll never see him making that face you get when you realize everything you had ever done was wrong. Stupid helmets.

Now, with The Master being a smart guy, I'd think he'd try to find a way around it. But by 2200, with limited facilities and few willing test subjects, he might see the plan as not only flawed but also impossible to rectify, as he does in the main game if you present him with the evidence of the Super Mutant sterility. Of course, in that time frame, he kills himself by blowing himself up with a nuclear weapon under the Cathedral, kinda a last resort option. Would he do that? Maybe in utter despair he would, especially as it's hard to stop a horde of angry, well armed giants that would be by now either at the Mississippi or over it and advancing even further east, spreading the Unity even further.

So, there are two possible scenarios: the Master kills himself, and throws his entire army into chaos, or presides over a doomed Empire that is constantly growing larger and larger. Since the game has his killing himself when he realizes the plan is flawed, I think he would cash out that way.

...I'm not really even trying anymore, am I?

So, the Master kills himself, the super mutant armies, mostly composed of un-intelligent soldiers with a few leaders that kept their smarts after being dipped, it's safe to say that the entire thing falls apart. Different factions come up, with some just wanting to stop fighting and others who want to continue the Master's plan and conquer the whole world, and everything in between. Civil War destroys the Unity. When it's super mutant fighting super mutant, it's fair to say that no one wins. The numbers of the super mutants plummet, turning them from a fierce and proud warrior race to a shadow of their former selves. However they still cause massive amounts of damage, possibly destroying what few human outposts survive in the East, such as the Capital Wasteland, the Pitt, and Point Lookout. The Commonwealth, briefly mentioned in Fallout 3 and where Fallout 4 will be taking place, might be in a good position to hold them off, with androids, robots, new weapons and a seemingly more organized civilization. Of course, I can't say much for certain until I play Fallout 4....

Time for the obligatory "OMG, CAN'T WAIT TO PLAY FALLOUT 4 COMMENT!" I always do in these articles...

And now the Enclave steps in. With humanity, mutant and non-mutant alike, on the West Coast nearly extinguished and wide open spaces open, the Enclave begins to resettle the Wasteland. Unfortuantly, another problem emerges, the fact that inbreeding is a major problem in a community that had been isolated for so long. You start to see the effects even when Fallout 2 happens, and it's fair to say that since there isn't many groups to "renew" the blood line, the Enclave might turn into something approaching a backwoods Louisiana hillbilly family. Basically humanity isn't going to be in good shape, at least as far as America is concerned. Maybe the rest of the world might get it's act together and start trying to unify the world. Or not. After all... War. War never changes.

At least on the bright side... there is no Caesar's Legion.

Because just screw these guys. Mr. House all the way!

Conclusion

Usually when I do Alternate History, I try not to go into the whole "Because this happened, therefore everything was better/worse!" that you usually see in certain alternate history stories. I feel that, while maybe some scenarios would leave the world in a worse place than what really happened, there are always a few trade offs. Heck, if Hitler won World War Two, at least their would be autobahns everywhere.

However, in a nuclear or post-apocalyptic scenario, no one wins. The vast majority of the world is dead, the few people left might as well be, and only a very few lucky people will get the chance to live out the nuclear winter in a fallout shelter that won't subject them to cruel and unusual social and environmental experiments. Radiation, ruins, the loss of technology and a few thousand years of cultural advancement gone in one big mushroom cloud. The only group that would win would be the cockroaches.

So, sometimes it's nice to look back, and see that, well, things may be bad but they can be a lot, lot worse. And in my opinion, the best place to do that would be in a video game. It's both real and isn't: a simulation of a world that could be ours, providing a bit of escapism, maybe some feel good moments along with cathartic pleasure, relaxation, and if you are downright cruel bastard, a place for you to toy with computer beings as a malevolent god.

And everyone that has played The Sims is a cruel, fickle god. That's just science.

However, there is always the part of my mind that enjoys a thought experiment like this. An alternate history of an alternate history. Maybe not quite a novel within a novel as you've seen some writers accomplish, but at the same time, it's fun, entertaining, and can help to answer those questions that game developers either didn't have the time, money, or desire to show case.

And now, if you excuse me, I got a Fallout fanfic to finish before the next game comes out.

Okay, finally! That's the Mas.... OH MY GOD, I FORGOT HOW TERRIFYING HE IS. KILLITKILLITKILLIT!

THANK YOU.

AltHistory Scenario #10: What if the Russian Revolution Never Happened?

Let's face it: Russia has gotten the short end of the stick in, well... forever. Tyranny, backwardness, oppression, racism and dealing with all the leaders that not only weren't the sharpest knives in the drawer but also had a few screws loose. Sure, there were the good moments like kicking Napoleon out of Russia in 1812 and the collapse of the USSR in 1991, but for the most part Russian history just seems to get darker and more depressing as time goes on.

One of those dark moments was the Russian Revolution in 1917 that overthrew Czar Nicholas II and established a Bolshevik regime that would later become the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. While the revolution itself is long overdue and welcomed at first, in hindsight it can't be said that it improved the lot of the ordinary peasant, especially once Joseph Stalin showed up.

Stalin. Pretty much the most hated person in Alternate History. We even let Hitler win a few times.

So, what if the Russian Revolutions never happened?

Point of Divergence

The Russian Revolutions were very much a product of incompetence of Czar Nicholas II, the army, his ministers, and almost everyone in the top of the political structure of the Russian Empire, and it finally lead to a complete breakdown of the Empire after the February Revolution. Now, before any Russian History majors starts shouting at me in Cyrillic in the comments, I'll point out that Russia was still using the Julian Calendar in 1917, and not the Gregorian Calendar that most of the Western World started using in 1583 and still use today. So I'll most likely be referring to the Gregorian Calendar dates here on out.

Because if I were to use the Mayan dates, the conspiracy theorists would think I'm predicting the end of the world.

So, in order to avoid the February Revolution, and with it the October (November) Revolution a few months later, we need to give a boost to the Russian military. The best I can think is that the Brusilov Offensive in June 1916 had more support than it got in our timeline. First, when the main attack was running out of steam by late July, General Alexei Evert had used his armies to support the offensive, instead of delaying like he did, and then only launched a half hearted offensive. Second, STAVKA, the Russian high command, doesn't interfere as much as in our timeline after the initial successes.

Immediate Consequences

When Brusilov's attack began to slow down in the face of German reinforcements and extended supply lines, Evert's attack began. While not as tactically finesse as Brusilov's, the attack had the intended consequence to diverting German strength away from Brusilov long enough to allow supplies, reinforcements and artillery to advance and catch up with the main army. In mid-August, Brusilov ordered the attack to begin again, smashing the Austro-Hungarian armies and German forces in front of him, gaining more prisoners, and advancing to the Carpathian Mountains.

You are going to hear a lot about this guy, General Aleksei Brusilov, in this article.

With the entire Austro-Hungarian army now pretty much in disarray and panic, Germany was forced to send more and more troops to the Eastern front, removing troops from the Western front to confront the crisis in the east. This allows the Battle of Verdun and the Somme to go easier for Britain and France, though the slog is still tough and brutal in the trenches. Eventually, Brusilov told STAVKA that he can't continue any more in September, and order's his troops to halt and dig in. German forces mount several counter attacks, and while they do force the Russians back in some areas, it's clear that Russia has not only won it's first major victory of the war, but that they can hold it. Russian morale soars as winter falls, and offensive maneuvers are put on hold.

Casualties are high, though not as bad as it could have been due to the tactics that Brusilov used. While the desire for peace is still high, many think that maybe there is a possibility it could be done with a Russian victory. The Bolsheviks try to stir up discontent and strikes, however they begin to lose support, especially when Brusilov takes a dramatic step in January 1917. Rumours reached Nicolas II, accusing Brusilov of disloyalty to the Czar, which he begins to take seriously. However, a coalition of liberal and conservative nobles, land owners and factory owners organize themselves into The Committee for Victory, see Brusilov as the best chance Russia has for victory int he war. When the court intrigue finally forces Nicholas II to summon Brusilov to dismiss him, equally intense pressure erupts to not only keep Brusilov in command, but to make him the Commander-in-Chief, the title that Czar Nicholas II took in 1915.

Honestly, about the only thing Nicholas II did right was his beard and moustache. And that can be hard enough some times.

The crisis reaches a fever pitch, but eventually the Czar is forced to back down, and instead of firing Brusilov, makes him his deputy commander-in-chief, though in reality he now has most of the power, nearly a military dictator in Russia. Brusilov uses his new position to force out incompetent officers, reorganize the economy for full mobilization, engage in a massive propaganda blitz to keep up morale, and a tight lid on dissent, including suppressing the Bolsheviks. The biggest coup occurred when Vladimir Lenin, believing Russia was ripe for revolution, convinced the beleaguered Germans to let him return. When Lenin arrived in Petrograd, he was met immediately by members of the Okhrana, the secret police, and he was never heard from again.

By Summer 1917, Russia was in a much better position than just a few months before. However, Brusilov knew that he couldn't squander this chance by throwing Russia straight into the German machine guns. Instead, knowing that Generals Hindenburg and Ludendorff, who had been named the new commander-in-chief and deputy commander in chief of the German Army, advocated a Russia first approach, Brusilov had his army prepared for the defensive. When Germany did attack the front near the city of Minsk, Brusilov was willing to allow organized retreats, drawing German troops deeper and deeper into Russia, voluntarily ceding Minsk to Germany. However, this stretched German supply lines, and by the time the German's had advanced close to 75 miles past the front, with the line stretched but not broken, a counter offensive was called for, smashing the German armies in battle, taking over 400,000 prisoner's in just a couple of weeks.

So... would this make the Germans "Beer drinking surrender monkeys" in this ATL? I dunno...

While the strategy was unpopular, it was successful, and soon Russian troops were on a general offensive. Vilnius was retaken, as was all of Ukraine, and soon Minsk was recaptured as the pocket surrendered. Germany tried to rush more troops to the east, but they were unable to pull more troops from the west. The Western Allies, seeing the weakness of Germany, launch their major offensives in June 1917, quickly turning into a rout for the Germans. When they propose unrestricted submarine warfare again to force Britain from the war, Hindenburg and Ludendorff, their "Russia First" strategy in tatters, are instead both relieved from command in July. Belgium is reclaimed and Russian troops approach Brest-Litovisk. Italy, long stalemated against Austria-Hungary, finally cracks the Isonzo Front, and soon spread out into Slovenia. Bulgaria and the Ottoman Empire also begin to face reinvigorated Russian troops, and defeat and defeat occurs.

By August 1917, Germany's military situation was dire. Austria-Hungary, in the throes of nationalist upheaval, signs armistices' to the Allies, followed by Bulgaria and the Ottoman Empire. By the end of August, Germany too gives up. The war is over almost a year before it actually does.

Later Consequences

It wouldn't be until 1918 that the final peace treaty is signed. However, while the original demands of the Allies are harsh, the Central Powers are able to negotiate to lessen the terms. The effects are still severe. Alsace-Lorraine is returned to France, East Prussia and the Rhineland de-militarized, the Navy reduced in size to only a third of the UK's size, all the colonies divided between France and Britain. The Ottoman Empire see's Mesopotamia, Syria and Palestine freed from their control and given independence as their own nations with no British or French interference.

Because, in remarkable foresight, they realize that arbitrary lines in the desert will just lead to douchebags that kill thousands of innocent people, displace millions and destroy priceless historical treasures because they believed a nutbag's reading of the Koran.  

The biggest loser is Austria-Hungary. It was difficult to sign a peace with them, and in the end it wouldn't be done until 1920, when the "Austro-Hungarian Civil War" finally ends, with a half dozen new countries: Austria, Hungary, Bohemia, Transylvania, Croatia, Serbia, and Slovenia are all established, with only Austria maintaining the Hapsburg monarchy. While Russia and Italy do take a bit of territory, in general all the nations are recognized.

In Russia, the effect of the war is profound. The empire is fatally weakened, the incompetence of the Czar, the Czarina, his ministers, the generals and the nobles all exposed. While the Bolshevik's are no longer a threat, the demand for reform is still strong. Brusilov, not wanting to see Russia break apart, demands that the Czar give a representative Duma to the people. Nicholas II, broken, nervous, ill and mourning over the death of his son due to haemophilia in 1918, accepts. By 1920, elections have established a new Duma, a new constitution, and named Brusilov as the new Prime Minister. Using his position, a series of reforms are undertaken, though it leaves everyone unhappy except for the army, which he devotes special attention to.

Because even when the Russian army loses, it still wins.

The landowners are compensated for the land they have to give up, but a fraction of their actual value, and not enough to satisfy most peasants. New state controlled business, with modern machinery from Britain and France and paying a higher wage than most factories, force factory owners to raise their own wages and improve their own equipment to compete. However taxes remain high due to the cost of the war, and with a manpower shortage the harvest of 1919 nearly leads to famine, but it's only averted by emergency shipments of grain from the US and Canada. The Bolshevik's attempt an armed coup, as do some die-hard Monarchists, and though hundreds are killed in the separate revolts, Brusilov's new government survives. When Brusilov passes away in 1924, he is replaced by his protege, the young Alexander Kerensky, who remains Prime Minister for the next 15 years. By 1939, Russia has been transformed from a backwards, slow, and lumbering empire to a vibrant, economic powerhouse. While the government has a strong, heavy hand to it, democracy is slowly flourishing, and politics is more peaceful than in times past. While nationalist minorities wish to break away, an effort in 1931 to give them more autonomy has sated all but the diehard nationalists for the current time.

The rest of Europe is also changed: the new nations of Central Europe are a mixture of republican and monarchist, with equal measure democracy and autocracy. Germany is the best example: while a Republic was declared, and elections are generally free, the governments have been heavy handed in their dealings with those that disagree with them, and there are many conservatives, monarchists, moderates, socialists, Bolsheviks and others that engage in sometimes cutthroat and fierce political maneuvering. While Kaiser Wilhelm II remains a "special guest" of Emperor Charles of Austria, it's pretty much impossible to consider bringing him back. However, despite men like Ludendorff claiming their was a "stab in the back," the peace treaty is accepted by most of the people, which undercuts extreme nationalists like a certain Austrian corporal, who leads a fringe anti-Semitic, anti-slavic, warmongering and dictatorial party that eventually collapses when he dies in a car accident in 1935. The Ottoman Empire, in comparison, stagnates for decades, with Sultan's still lording over Anatolia, modernizing the army to the neglect of the economy and politics, seeking the next chance to reclaim lost lands in Europe, Asia and Africa.

Maybe not realizing that most of the people in this yellow blob actually hate them.

The United Kingdom and France, while victorious, suffer a sharp economic depression after the war. The reparations that they receive from the Central Powers, while large, is no where near enough to cover the huge expenses they racked up. This, followed with a quick demobilization, means millions of people are unemployed. It would take until the mid 1930s for the economy to recover. Italy recovers Trento and Dalmatia, and are generally satisfied with what they got in the war, but a simmering revolt in Dalmatia continues to be a problem.

The US, not having been dragged into the war, continues in "splendid isolation" for decades. A stock market crash in 1937 nearly craters the American economy, and causes ripples throughout the world, but it would be years before the US recovers, and after a disastrous war with Japan in 1943 awakens the US to the realization they are isolated in the world leads to a gradual diplomatic opening with the rest of the world.

Before you ask: yes, Dr. Seuss did draw political cartoons mocking Hitler and America First. And also racist Japanese ones, but let's not talk about that right now.

A Second World War wouldn't break out for years, and eventually a new "balance of power" is established in the world by 1950: the UK, France, Russia, Germany, Japan and the US are the six most powerful nations in the world, and generally resolve disputes with diplomacy, though minor wars break out between one power and the other; the war between Japan and the US, and later Russia and Japan, are the most notable. With a minor victory against the US and a protracted stalemate against Russia, Japan is seen, in a sense, as a "rouge nation," and have allied with Germany as a balancing force. The UK, France and Russia maintain their tenuous alliance, with the US still trying to get in to the "big boys club," and instead maintain alliances with many smaller nations like Italy, Sweden, Iran and Brazil in return. All the nations maintain strong militaries, and conscription is a universal trait, as well as big navies and untested airforces.

As of the 1950s, it's not known if a World War could break out between the great powers. But while several crisis have been solved, especially over the lingering imperial powers, it's to be seen if a new "Great War" will soon break out.

But most not likely with these guys to keep the moral questions a bit more black and white. Damnit!

Probability/Conclusion

I honestly think that this scenario gives Russia quite a few lucky breaks in order to prevent a revolution. But this is perhaps the scenario I could think of that avoids the revolutions when Russia enters World War One. Had Russia stayed out of the fighting, then it's possible the revolutions could have been delayed, but in that case, Russia might no longer have been considered a great power, and a revolution would occur anyway.

Perhaps the only true way to avoid the 1917 Revolution was to have the 1905 Revolution succeed, and Czar Nicholas II just meekly accepts his new role as constitutional monarch. I don't know if Russia would be in better shape in time for 1914 if that happened, but I'm inclined to believe that possibly it would be. Instead of a single, ineffectual autocrat controlling everything, maybe an elected Duma would have been able to modernize the military and reform the economy, though it's hard to see if it would be for the good of the Russian Empire or for the industrialists, nobles and wealthy that made up the electors of the Duma in 1905.

In the end, I think the Russian Revolutions of 1917 were bound to happen. If not over the war, maybe over a misstep of the Czar in 1919, or 1921, or any other time. But do the communists have to come to power? Well, that's another debatable point, and one that could be explored in other alternate histories.

OH S***, STALIN'S GOT A TIME MACHINE. AND NOT JUST ANY TIME MACHINE. WE ARE ALL F***ED!!!