World and NPC Fluffing

[Kaiser Kirk]

We have a broad strokes outline of how the world got from ancient times to now in a fairly logical way. It's somewhat dispersed, but there.

We have a general idea that our nations are the great powers, but that there's the NPCs which are at near-parity or a tech cycle behind, and then there's the blank spaces where there's an expectation that they are more like India or China were in the - a couple generations behind.  In these areas native empires have bloomed, matured, and died, what we see "now" is the 1910 status.
It is perfectly possible for these areas to be on the level of the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg - a fully functional state, just a bit to small to bother mapping.  I tend to view them as either tribal, or highly balkanized little kingdoms. 

The world has been knit together by land and sea trade routes, but the great colonial expansion era never manifested - presumably because of disease parity and much better armed natives.  The evolution of weaponry and it's mass production by the great powers means they can bring sufficient firepower to seize and hold areas.  I am working on the presumption that some even has happened, perhaps a book expounding the need to grab land and resources "The Effects of Controlling Raw Materials" by Adam Smith...or somesuch, combined with the sudden population pressure that the late 1890s medical advances have caused...has led to a race.

So who are these NPCs?

I for one have some time on my hands so if you need any help fluffing up NPCs let me know.

The questions about the Iroquois and the Sioux got me to thinking that a little bit more fleshed out might be nice for both guests and the players.
Toss in my trying to figure which nations might have historic ties, and why. Parthia and China - two ends of the Silk road. Makes sense for Byzantium to have tried
to forge ties with Japan or Thailand...but Rome had trade with South Asia, maybe Rome is Thailand?

So I was just going to write up a paragraph or two on each and then post for comment or a giant "hey no!! "

Anyhow, I've already started the Indian states. Rajastan's done, Decca is in progress. Laksman...to go.

Some of the NPCs are easy.. ||
Thailand is.. Thailand.
China is China
Japan is Japan.

Some like the Golden Horde or are not. That will be probably a collaborative thread.

A couple good ones would be :
Ethiopia - Rich History, ancient Christian and Jewish states, carefully between Parthia and Rome/Byzantium for centuries, but independent. Probably butted heads with the Parthians when Parthia held Yemen, but not for the past 1300 years. I'd guess Parthia has backed them against Rome/Byzantium, but they've been a powerful independent Kingdom for millennia.

What exactly is the Shoganate of Japan - is that post Perry's black fleet ,  or Pre? 

The United Berber States is probably one with few conflicts, but it would be nice to know who they are.
After about 750, the stream of money and troops from the East would be cut off, which led to the earlier Reconquista in Iberia.
We know the Muslim conquest of West Africa happened, through the Mali Empire.
Probably they pushed south, then had the North African shore reconquered behind them.
But the Berbers aren't a historic empire...so who are they?

The Latin and South Americas are still pretty open.

It's all just Draft, subject to player and Snip oversight.
And we want to change real history only a bit.  So having the Celts sail to the new world and settle the Incans...noooope :)

Anyhow, grab what you find tickles your fancy and welcome to contribute !

[Desertfox]

As part of our discussions about the Aztec and Mayan Empires I did a bit of research into historical Mali and North Africa, so I'll have some thoughts to throw in to the mix for the Bebers.

With Perry happening in the mid 1800's and no US here, I would say Japan would be more pre-Perry. Maybe more Dutch influence in the 1600's that died away as the Dutch were assimilated into Vilinus? Maybe Vilinus and/or the Northern Kingdom maintained relationships as a way to counteract the Golden Horde.

[Kaiser Kirk]

A key part of what I've tried to do, is keep historical departures short and abrupt.
The idea being that if we haven't specified what happened, we can kinda assume something similar to historical happened.
Which makes it easier than rewriting world history from scratch.

Which means the Perry-esque thing is completely up for playing with. I was more referencing the pre-Perry anti-tech Shogunate vs. the post-Perry need to modernize Japan. The name suggests they could be very backward and insular....or just very militarized.

As a general concept, I am thinking the Golden Horde era did sever the silk road, leading the European powers to re-engage in the Age of Exploration.  Now, the Norse and Mali connections might make it clearer that a Roman Sailor in Iberian employment was merely re-establishing a route somewhere.

That same drive historically sent the Portuguese - here the Iberians/Romans around Africa. While Parthia/Byzantium would have gone the historical India Ocean routes.

All of which means trade with China/Japan can roughly follow history unless otherwise specified...but there's plenty of opportunities for variance. 

On China : I was eyeing China fielding a fairly decent fleet, like they work working up to in the 1880s, and having the Phillipines-Borneo be considered their 'sphere' of influence and action. Conflicts with Japan and Thailand would be assumed.

[The Rock Doctor]

On the Dutch:  I think my notional timeline has them gobbled up by Vilnius fairly late, probably 19th century.  The Dutch would be available to do stuff on their own before that, and their NPC contacts could either like or dislike Vilnius afterward depending on what they thought of the Dutch.

[Jefgte]

...While Parthia/Byzantium would have gone the historical India Ocean routes...

About Australia, Parthia/Byzantium had just commercial counters.
Byzantium is going to have a commercial counter in Shark Baie (1912)
Australia had a coastal fleet with much monitors & cruisers with Byzantium artillery.

"Aboriginal Australians Kingdom" is neutral.

...Just my idea

[Desertfox]

Here is my very rough attempt at proving a history for the Mexican states and the Beber states. I have them all together with Iberia since I feel the 4 nations would be closely linked. Any thoughts? Comments?


History of Iberia – Aztec Empire - Mayan People's Republic – United Berber States

1311 Abu Bakr II Expedition to the new world is successful

1330 Mansa Musa sends first colonizing expedition to Mexico, colony trading port of New Andalusia founded in Tampico.

Mid 1300's fueled by trade with the new world Mali Empire reaches its peak. It also becomes the leader of the Muslim world.

1428 Aztec Empire founded

1430 Civil War in Mali Empire, Songhai Empire replaces Mali Empire, maintains its connections to the new world connections to the new world severed

1519 New Seville (Veracruz) founded, it becomes a critical link between New Andalusia in the north and the Aztec Empire and reestablishing connections with the Songhai Empirethe Muslim states of West Africa. Aztecs form alliance with Muslims of New Andalusia and quickly control most of Central Mexico, New Andalusia becoming a self governing province of the Aztec Empire

1542 Merida founded, fueled by trade with Africa the Mayan Empire has a resurgence

1555 Spain conquers Morocco and Algeria – pseudo Alhambra Decree, a few mainly rich merchant Jews expelled from North Africa for supporting the Muslims rulers, migrate to New World settling in the Muslim colonies in Merida and New Andalusia, the Decree has much less impact otherwise than the historical one.

1591 Battle of Tondibi does not occur as Morocco has been conquered by Spain and the Songhai Empire has been reinforced by firearms and Muslims from North Africa that have migrated after the Spanish Conquest

1650s Sugar plantations spring up in the Caribbean fueled by a slave trade

1700s European political refugees settle in Merida, they bring with them this new idea of Communism. The century also results in multiple wars between the Aztec and Mayans (similar to the UK and France) increasing presence of European traders and opening of trade ports in the Caribbean in the 1700s.

1754-1783 Various Aztec-Mayan wars disrupt trade with Africa

1780 Songhai Empire weakened by war with Spain and lack of support from the Aztec Empire collapses into a number of different kingdoms

1789 Mayan Revolution begins, the Mayan Emperor is overthrown and the rich houses supporting him are targeted

1799 Mayan Revolution ends, Mayan People's Republic founded, war beings with Aztec Empire, prominent Mayans and rich Jewish merchants flee to formerly Mayan controlled plantations in the Caribbean (Puerto Rico and Dominican Republic)

1807 Weakened by war, without African support, and fearing revolts in its own territories Aztec Empire outlaws slave trade – decline in sugar plantations

1815 Battle of Puebla, Mayans defeated, war saps power of both nations and leads to the collapse of any control they had over the Caribbean.

1825 Spain takes over all of North Africa. Songhai Empire weakened by war with Spain and lack of support from the Aztec Empire collapses into a number of different kingdoms

1833 Aztec Empire outlaws slavery - collapse of sugar plantations in Caribbean, attempts to revive the industry with immigrants from Rajastan fail to gain traction, but some minor colonies of Rajastanis do spring up in the Caribbean and primarily in the Guyanas.   

Mid 1800's The Aztec Empire begins reestablishing connections to the various Muslim states in Africa

1870 Aztec-Mayan War, decisive Aztec victory

1871 Due to defeat in 1870 war, Mayan Republic collapses, communist Mayan People's Republic takes over.

1871 With Aztec support, the various  Muslim states are unified under the United Beber States flag

1900s Formerly Mayan controlled plantations (Puerto Rico and Dominican Republic) fear a resurgent Mayan People's Republic, seek out Vilnius support, formerly Aztec controlled plantations (Jamaica, Trinidad) fear a resurgent Aztec Empire, seek out Parthian support (just an idea for Rocky and KK, in case they wanted a reason for choosing those islands to colonize)

[Kaiser Kirk]

Sorry, wandered off for Thanksgiving and did not mention it.

As always, Snip has final say/appeal.

Working the mini-Alahambra in is a nice way to meet both the established Iberian history and your desire for one.

Overall, nice write up, and as an outline can work with a few minor modifications.

Probably the biggest objection is the combination of "colonies" and the  1799/1900s- work up for the islands. The colonies can be adapted, but the blank spaces on the map are not reaching out to anyone.  Nor are we specifying organized population groups there.


First, my understanding is that there are no old world colonies in the new world. PC, NPC, etc.
I do not see a reason why there can't be a trading enclave/city if that helps.
I think the general idea is to avoid old and pre-existing claims. Which I will admit I then immediately broke with Zanzibar/Swahili coast as Oman/Persia actually DID found much of that, but Jegfte was nice.

So the 1330 colonizing expedition needs to be toned down to a free city or trade port or something which can be called New Andalusia- but an enclave. Merida and Veracruz could be other such enclave.

Personally, I'd prefer the 1430 civil war to sever the links to the new world at least temporarily. Then have it re-established in 1519 as a sort of response to the Iberians finding a route.
That really doesn't interrupt your timeline.

Then I have suggestions.

I would suggest that the Aztecs expand, trading wealth and later sugar for guns and slaves, conquering the Mayas * (?) and the Caribbean. That would allow the Mali-Songhai Empires to go the path of the Fulani jihadists, more aggressively going warring on neighboring lands for slaves.  This recreates the historical triangle trade.

*You could then put the 1700s Mayan / Aztec wars as ones of liberation, or you can keep the sequence as you have.

I would also add increasing presence of European traders and opening of trade ports in the Caribbean in the 1700s. This gives an alternate source of wealth and weapons which can aid the revolt.

Personally, I'd like to avoid the European colonists introducing communism..why can't the Maya invent it on their own? Why do they need folks from Europe to bring them to the light?

The 1807 outlawing of the trade by the Aztecs does not make logical sense to me. Muslim nations continued slave trade into the 1920s, and supposedly later. I could however see the revolt in the Caribbean and resurgent Maya as strong means of severing the trade.

The collapse of the Songhai could be moved up to 1780.  The aggressive wars could lead to the Mossi Kingdoms, Dahomey and Oyo to band together to bring them down the Songhai Empire. The sudden loss of the trade link would have severe economic impacts on the Aztects. In these economic hard times, the revolts in the Caribbean and Maya could occur? That and the collapse of the Songhai sever the slave trade. 

1871- I'm oddly ok with the Aztecs spurring the Berber reunification. I can't really see a conflict with the base history there.

Again, overall a good write up. Most of what you came up with I didn't see issues with, and I think with minor adaptions we can get where you are going.

[Desertfox]

Lots of good suggestions there, I updated the timeline with them.

So the 1330 colonizing expedition needs to be toned down to a free city or trade port or something which can be called New Andalusia- but an enclave. Merida and Veracruz could be other such enclave.

Personally, I'd prefer the 1430 civil war to sever the links to the new world at least temporarily. Then have it re-established in 1519 as a sort of response to the Iberians finding a route.
That really doesn't interrupt your timeline.

That's actually what I had in mind, a trading port in Tampico. 1430 and 1519 I think work perfectly, any growth of New Andalusia from Tampico and Veracruz could happen after 1519 as part of the Aztec Empire and not as a Mali colony.

Personally, I'd like to avoid the European colonists introducing communism..why can't the Maya invent it on their own? Why do they need folks from Europe to bring them to the light?

I always saw communism as a European invention, but you are right, nothing is stopping the Mayans from inventing it. Especially if the Mayan Empire is not as mellowed by Muslim influence as the Aztecs, the more brutal conditions would be more conducive to revolution. The 1790's wars could lead to a Mayan Republic followed by say another revolution in 1871 (after another Aztec-Mayan War) to go full communism.

I do think it's best if the Mayans are always independent.

The 1807 outlawing of the trade by the Aztecs does not make logical sense to me. Muslim nations continued slave trade into the 1920s, and supposedly later. I could however see the revolt in the Caribbean and resurgent Maya as strong means of severing the trade.

I was borrowing dates from OTL British (Aztecs) and French (Mayans) history. The rationale could be a combination of factors, the Mayan Revolution spooking the Aztecs, the war with the Mayans seriously draining resources (with possibly an earlier Songhai collapse), Mayan inspired/funded salve revolts in the Caribbean, and an attempt to gain European support for their war against the Mayans.

[Kaiser Kirk]

From what I recall of the world set up discussions and PMs, I don't see a problem with little enclaves.  We're trying to avoid ancient territorial claims.

The Mayans historically we don't know as much about as the Aztecs. From the little I've read.. which come to think of it does include a little booklet somewhere... they seem to have a powerful monarch and priestkings. The collapse was probably drought leading to civil war. They apparently have resurged from that. So it's pretty open, but there's no reason the masses might not think sharing a bit more sounds like a good idea :) 

My quibble with the slave trade is that the Aztecs practiced it, the Muslims considered non-believers enslavable, and the Ottomans certainly continued the practice, the wiki article on the Circassians indicates an estimated 200,000 slaves imported into the Ottomans 1800-1909. While in Africa, numerous states continued the practice as well. The Dahomeys were much like the Aztecs. None of the source states voluntarily ended slavery anywhere that early.  So I don't see a society derived of those elements suddenly embracing it early on.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_slavery_in_the_Muslim_world

I don't give the British Imperial Foreign Policy great credit for a lot, but taking an aggressive stance against slavery- to the extent of distant naval patrols- early on is their gig. Granted, that was after indulging in it... but still credit. Much better than Leopold II of Belgium !!   Parthia gets into that concept, but a couple decades later, despite what few reports we have is it was not being a traditional slaving state.

Sorry brain already fading, I'll try to plan a detailed last look tomorrow.

Hey thanks for the work !!

[Desertfox]

Oh I'm with you on slavery, which is why I thought keeping the triangle slave trade made a lot of sense. That said, I feel keeping slavery through the 1800's introduces too many problems: stronger Aztec and Songhai Empires, longer control over the Caribbean, and potential conflicts with Europeans. We also don't have a British Empire equivalent around. But I agree, it would take something drastic and external to force such changes. In England it was the war with France that forced the issue and provided the solution:

A radical change of tactics, which involved the introduction of a bill to ban British subjects from aiding or participating in the slave trade to the French colonies, was suggested by maritime lawyer James Stephen. It was a shrewd move, since the majority of British ships were now flying American flags and supplying slaves to foreign colonies with whom Britain was at war.[142] A bill was introduced and approved by the cabinet, and Wilberforce and other abolitionists maintained a self-imposed silence, so as not to draw any attention to the effect of the bill.[143][144] The approach proved successful, and the new Foreign Slave Trade Bill was quickly passed, and received royal assent on 23 May 1806.

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

However, the outlawing could be more of a "in-name only" with indentured servitude replacing it. Historically, slavery was dying in the US until the invention of the cotton gin. Since sugar is the cash crop here, something impacting the sugar trade could also be an additional factor. Perhaps war disrupts the sugar trade, with popularity starting to increase in Europe, Europe starts to buy from alternate sources (India?) and the Caribbean sugar production is not able to recover?

[The Rock Doctor]

Maybe have the Mayans go communist earlier, give them a win somewhere, and have them literally break the workers'/slaves' chains because slavery is a regressive bourgeoise paradigm?

[Kaiser Kirk]

Interesting Fox.
I don't see how extending the practice - which historically did persist into the mid 1800s- makes them in some manner too strong. 
In large part because most countries were probably doing it.  Historically, both had rather predatory practices for gathering new slaves, that tends to tick off the neighbors and make for easy coalitions. There's also no reason internal problems couldn't lead to collapse, that's rather common.

I certainly don't mind them phasing out slavery in the 1800s, just mid-late feels more historic.
For that matter, unless I've missed it (quite possible), I don't think the players have specified their empires as having abandoned slavery a-historically.
Though for historical Persia/Parthia it seems slavery was kept for crimes or prisoners of war, not a broad or continuing class.

According to Wiki.... Sugar production started in India - and spread to Afghanistan.  China documented it as Indian as of 800BCE. India is also where they started to crystallize it in 500CE.
The Canaries and Caribbean just were great places to grow it.

Eventually the Brits got the idea of setting up plantations back in India in 1790. Here we can just have it be a Laksmanavati initiative. Perhaps that becomes a consideration behind the opening of Suez. Construction started 1859, finished 1869.  So Indian sugar grows in importance 1790-1860, and by 1880 has dominated the European market with cheaper and safer routes to the Med.
So as you suggest, here, a similar transition could also kick the legs out from under the teetering Caribbean economy, making the big slaveholding freeholdings uneconomical. 

The economy would take a big hit in the mid 1800s, and when the canal opened, the money dries up.  The 1870s see plantations fail, "freedom" granted, the Aztec economy collapses, there's a ripple effect to Songhai and the long-annoyed neighbors go to town?

Instead of indentured servants - which traditionally paid off immigration passage via labor - why not just "Freedom" like the liberated slaves in the US South - congrats, you're free.
You need money to do anything. No you don't have any money. Would you like to be a sharecropper? Let me rig the system so you're at the brink of poverty. Hey isn't freedom grand?
In that destitute era of former plantations the various Europeans can venture.

To me, one of the genius things of your introducing the Muslim religion to the Aztecs is it turns what would be a Pariah state into a viable diplomatic partner.
The historic Aztecs, brought forward whole, would have tremendous problems - a state built on war and slaves and brutal blood sacrifice would seem a poor partner for the various brands of Christianity.

So your write up is a big help in giving us a picture of what this state is.

[Kaiser Kirk]

In the path forward thread, a bit more back ground, but not too much more seems the generic idea.
Or I could be misreading things.

So this is the "brief" sort of fleshing out I was thinking of for this thread.
Actually I started this writing back when I started this thread.

More elaborate is ok,
but the core concept is for us to know what sort of state that NPC represents.
To that end I added a bit more to what I had, and drew a parallel to a historical realm.
In this case Imperial Germany of Wilhelm I and Bismarck.

The question is - too much, not enough, or just about right?

Draft concept
Rajasthan
Founded : 1761
Government : Imperial with strong traditional Kingdoms.
Government Model : 1880s Imperial Germany.
Historical Departure Point(s) : 1700, 1761.
Historical Countries : India, Pakistan
Friendly Power(s) : Byzantium, Thailand, China.
Hostile Powers(s) : Parthia, Deccan, Laksmanavati[
Naval Forces BP/HY : 1/5 of PC, or 5BP/HY.

Rajasthan :
Rajasthan is an Empire founded in Rajasthan, ruled by the feudal nobility
of the Rajput Caste.  Rajasthan includes the Thar desert, but also the fertile lands of the Punjab region, the five rivers making for an extremely productive farmlands. The end of the Silk road through eastern Parthia to western China is here, and long brought both prosperity and invaders. Parthia holds the silk road passes and the western side of the Indus valley, long a source of intermittent conflict. 

The history is similar to the OTL, with the Indian, Persian, Indian, Macedonia, Indian,
Greco-Bactrian, Scythian, Sassanid , Parthian,
then Indian rulers of the area putting their stamp on the region.

The Muslim faith was introduced with the invaders of the Muslim conquest.
It was refreshed in the expansion of Tamberlin.  This then gave rise to
the Mughal Empire. The professional military castes were known as Rajput.
Like the Persian Satraps, military leaders were appointed to lead the
various small Kingdoms which made up the Empire. When the Maratha Empire
shattered the Mughal Empire at the 1700 Battle of Satara. Civil war
ensured, as the Kingdoms revolted, tearing the Mughals apart.

Eventually, faced with the need to band together against other powers, Rajasthan
emerged as the dominant Kingdom, bringing the others to knee, while
forming an alliance with the Jats of the Sihk Empire. This combination was
cemented in the victory at the 3rd Battle of Panipat in 1761.  Subsequent
to the battle, a meeting of states was held and an Imperial Constitution
agreed to.

A warrior people, Rajasthan has repeatedly fought it's neighbors both for expansion and to defend the agrarian heartlands.  They were victorious in 1896, when a mineral survey led to a dispute over the boundary and a Parthian attempt to seize the important seaport of Karachi.

The peoples are Indo-Aryan, the Religions are primarily Muslim,
with Sihkism, Hinduism, Buddhism, and Zoroastrianism as the other major
constituents.
In this case, with little seacoast and a lot of vulnerable land borders, in the 'Middleweight' thread I proposed this for 1/5 the BP of a Power.

[Kaiser Kirk]

For the 'Middleweight' concept, we'd add categories of 'Combat Range' and 'Naval Goals'.
Naval Goals would be defense of Karachi and their coastline, and the ability to interfere with Deccan or Parthian merchants, or make tip and run raids on their coasts.

Range to achieve these would only be about 900nm South or West, and back. 1,800nm + combat, say 2,400nm

So a variety of small craft, coast defense ships, and small fast cruisers with a shallow draft for hiding in bays/rivers might be a reasonable build concept, and at an average of 5BP/HY, achievable.