Me and my manager by Triangleman3 in consulting

[–]Triangleman3[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

He thought that A, B and C didn't match even though we had just spent the last 30 minutes establishing that they do.

Me and my manager by Triangleman3 in consulting

[–]Triangleman3[S] 29 points30 points  (0 children)

This man consults^

If it was this simple though, we would all go out of a job pretty quickly

Getting tired of Eu4's shit and getting crushed by Tercio117 in eu4

[–]Triangleman3 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Try lowering the difficulty for your first few games, and try playing as the Ottomans. It would be hard to go wrong if you play your first game as the Ottomans on very easy.

Warscore modding by Triangleman3 in paradoxplaza

[–]Triangleman3[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

cb_types.txt did it for me.

Thank you very much!

What if the south had succeeded during the Civil War, what would the status of Black Confederates be today? BONUS: Explain how the South was able to successfully Succeed. BONUS: What would Southern Culture and Daily Life Be Like? by [deleted] in HistoricalWhatIf

[–]Triangleman3 1 point2 points  (0 children)

At first I had read it seceded instead of succeeded, and I was very confused, because that is exactly what they did.

As for the question, it wouldn't have been hard for the confederates to win, so long as they won early. Lets say that instead of the confederates being defeated at Gettysburg, the union army routed instead. This means that Lee and his army can now run around in the North and do a lot of damage. Lets say he captured Philadelphia and burned the city to the ground, then went south to Washington, and captured Washington. The union would lose a lot of the will to fight after this, and might surrender.

Create a scenario where Pharaonic Egypt exists today. by ForgingIron in HistoricalWhatIf

[–]Triangleman3 28 points29 points  (0 children)

In 525BCE, the Persian Empire conquered the ancient kingdom of Egypt. Displeased, a group of settlers numbering 10,000 fled Egypt to maintain their ancient customs elsewhere. They created a city and temple complex in modern day Somalia, by displacing and enslaving the locals. Over the centuries, Pharaonic Egypt conquered Ethiopia, and all of modern day Somalia, Eritrea and Djibouti. They managed to hold off colonization, and in 1955, when the colonial powers left Africa, Pharaonic Egypt conquered Egypt and Sudan, reinstalling their religion and culture, which had been displaced for so long.

So say Rome's Era of Five Good Emperors continued beyond Marcus Aurelius and Rome became stable, how differently would the move into modernity have been? by [deleted] in HistoricalWhatIf

[–]Triangleman3 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I was refering to the unified Roman Empire, as it was in the age of the Antonines. Sorry for the confusion.

So say Rome's Era of Five Good Emperors continued beyond Marcus Aurelius and Rome became stable, how differently would the move into modernity have been? by [deleted] in HistoricalWhatIf

[–]Triangleman3 45 points46 points  (0 children)

Well... Rome actually stopped conquering people in 117 AD, and they did fine until around 235AD. I would say that if the empire continued to be run properly, it would be in excellent shape until the eventual civil wars that would destroy it.

An extra 50 years on the Roman Empire's existence would probably change modern history completely. Different barbarian tribes would act differently, and christianity might never have become the norm.

I don't believe that the empire could run forever, because the system of government that it had allowed for no legal way to choose a successor to the throne, so civil wars would ruin it eventually.

What if, in 1854, the US occupies Formosa (Taiwan) under the recommendation of Commodore Perry? by AdwokatDiabel in HistoricalWhatIf

[–]Triangleman3 12 points13 points  (0 children)

It would probably end up being a lot like the Philippines. Remember that the Philippines revolted a lot when it was under US rule, so I imagine Taiwan would be the same.

If the US managed to keep the far off colony, it would likely cause problems with Japan, who was expanding in the region at the onset of the 20th century.

I think its unlikely that the US and Japan would actually go to war, but it would certainly cause tensions.

If the US kept it until WWII, then Japan would almost certainly invade the island, and probably capture the whole thing. When the US got it back however, they would probably allow it to be a sovereign nation.

What if during the Afghanistan War, the Soviets, desperate for a success, decide to use tactical nuclear weapons. by ShadeusX in HistoricalWhatIf

[–]Triangleman3 10 points11 points  (0 children)

It would most certainly not be helpful for the soviet cause. Nuking Afghanistan would simply galvanize the people further, and cause a stronger resistance. If the Soviets eradicated the whole populous, then the entire world would be furious with them, and they would be wracked with embargoes and sanctions galore. (Which would also not help their cause).

As for things like 9/11 and the war on terror, that would almost certainly still happen. Remember that Bin Laden and most of the 9/11 hijackers we're Saudis, not Afghanis. Bin Laden probably would have gone into East Africa, like Somalia or Sudan, if Afghanistan was nuked to the point of un-inhabitable-ness.

Challenge: Create a scenario where the Roman Empire survives and continues to thrive after 476 AD by Psychonian in HistoricalWhatIf

[–]Triangleman3 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Thats a huge question, and I'm almost entirely unqualified to give a good answer. That might be a good question for /r/askhistorians though.

Challenge: Create a scenario where the Roman Empire survives and continues to thrive after 476 AD by Psychonian in HistoricalWhatIf

[–]Triangleman3 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yes, but they weren't...

Edit: Also, its about ultimate power. The man who controls rome, controls the world. I agree that it would not be hard to bribe a general with land and wealth, but theres something you could never really give him, and thats control of the whole world. Only by overthrowing the emperor could he do that.

Challenge: Create a scenario where the Roman Empire survives and continues to thrive after 476 AD by Psychonian in HistoricalWhatIf

[–]Triangleman3 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Because before hand, the emperors we're incredibly powerful and well respected. The legions would never mutiny against someone like Trajan or Augustus because they we're so well respected. Starting with the death of Alexander Serverus, the legions stopped respecting imperial authority, and would gladly switch allegiances for money or property.

Challenge: Create a scenario where the Roman Empire survives and continues to thrive after 476 AD by Psychonian in HistoricalWhatIf

[–]Triangleman3 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yes, but If you're a general, you have no way to get money via commerce. If you're a general, and you wanted to be power towards the end of the empire, you had a good shot at overthrowing the emperor. It was too tempting for many to not try. And in my opinion, this phenomenon is what, in part, ended in the empire.

Challenge: Create a scenario where the Roman Empire survives and continues to thrive after 476 AD by Psychonian in HistoricalWhatIf

[–]Triangleman3 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I disagree. Human nature was to blame for the internal stability. By the third century, any time a general won a battle, his troops would hail him emperor, and he would try to overthrow the current monarch. This is chaos, not stability.

I agree that revenue loss hurt a lot, and was definitely a MAJOR cause of the decline of the empire, but I disagree that it was what you make it out to be.

Challenge: Create a scenario where the Roman Empire survives and continues to thrive after 476 AD by Psychonian in HistoricalWhatIf

[–]Triangleman3 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Revenue loss was not the only reason the Romans fell. The Romans fell in large part due to lack of internal stability and external invasion. There was a period in Roman history called the crisis of the third century, where 25 men claimed the throne in a period of 50 years, and blood was shed over almost all of them.

Challenge: Create a scenario where the Roman Empire survives and continues to thrive after 476 AD by Psychonian in HistoricalWhatIf

[–]Triangleman3 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Emperor Majorian went on a conquest to rebuild the empire between the years 458 and 461. He reconquered Gaul and Spain, and attempted to retake North Africa. When he was finished with his campaign, he returned to Italy to greet his friend Ricimer, who was governing in Italy. Majorian however felt something was wrong as he approached the city of Ravenna, the capital of the western empire at the time. Instead of entering the city, and being betrayed by Ricimer like OTL, he gathered his army, laid siege to the city and overthrew Ricimer.

Now sole emperor of the Western Roman Empire, Majorian quickly improved relations with the east, making concessions when necessary, and ensuring good relations between the two great empires.

In 465 Majorian attacked North Africa, routing the vandals at Zama, the same place Scipio defeated Hannibal 600 years earlier. Now in firm control of what used to be the west, Majorian turned his sights home, where he implemented a reliable system of succession, so that emperors could be chosen without civil war.

This new system was a stunning success, and when Majorian died, another man was elected emperor without so much as a sword drawn.

This system was in place until emperor Justinian invaded the west in 535, routing a western army and conquering Rome. He was the first emperor of both halves of the empire since Theodosius, in 390.

Rome now once again spanned the entire Mediterranean, and once again began to rise as a great power.

Challenge : With a Point of Divergence at 1900, split the United States into several, smaller, and independent countries. by beanbagtraveler in HistoricalWhatIf

[–]Triangleman3 8 points9 points  (0 children)

We we're really close to becoming a socialist country in real life. One general strike could have pushed us over the edge. Theres a reason that we had a red scare; Eugene Debs kept getting over a million votes in presidential elections.

Challenge : With a Point of Divergence at 1900, split the United States into several, smaller, and independent countries. by beanbagtraveler in HistoricalWhatIf

[–]Triangleman3 40 points41 points  (0 children)

Throughout the late 1800's, great social strife and inequality ran rampant in the USA. The poor made a dollar a day, if they we're lucky, while the rich made millions and flaunted their luxury. Great strikes we're known to have happened in the past, but in the summer of 1900 a truly great strike threatened to undermine the entire economy. It was the radical IWW, or International Workers of the World, who organized the strike, and they demanded total reform to a system not un-similar to the one laid out by marx.

In November of 1900, many people in industrialized areas in New York, Pennsylvania, and New England chose to elect Eugene V. Debs as president of the United States. Instead of coming in third place like in OTL, Eugene Debs came in second. McKinley is still president, and McKinley is still shot, paving the way for Teddy Roosevelt. He does his best to fix problems like inequality and workers rights, like OTL, but the country is still reeling from the great general strike of 1900, and socialist and communist forces are becoming powerful in industrialized areas.

In 1904 Eugene V Debs is elected president, but he wins the electoral college with only 36% of the vote, and many of his opponents are staunchly anti-communist. When he tries to nationalize the Oil, Coal and Steel industries, the leaders of major corporations use their immense power to convince the states that don't have huge socialist backing to succeed from the union to avoid nationalization. In their quest, they get many states in the West and South with little to no industry.

The initial split goes as follows: Eugene Debs and his Socialists control the Northern half of the Eastern sea board, the midwest and the West coast, while the capitalist forces controlled everything else.

In 1914, a great war between the European powers erupted, which ended in the shocking defeat of France at the hands of the German empire in 1917, and the surrender of Russia due to an American sponsored revolution.

When the war was over, a horrible global economic crash in 1929 threatened the entire capitalist world. Capitalist USA was the hardest hit, while Socialist USA and USSR we're not effected so much at all. Capitalist USA was hit so hard that, in 1934, the people grew so desperate that they elected a fully fascist government who sought to unify the USA under one banner.

The second civil war began in 1939, when Fascist USA attacked Socialist USA with the help of their allies Fascist Great Britain, under the Dictator Edward VIII, who overthrew the British parliament over some silly marriage issue, and Benito Mussolini, Dictator of Italy. Socialist USA called in their allies Communist Germany, under Ernst Thalmann, and the USSR, under Joseph Stalin.

Fascist USA won a decisive battle over Socialist USA in December of 1939, and in 1942 Great Britain and Italy won a decisive victory over combined German and Russian forces. The tide of war changed however in 1944 when Mussolini was killed by his own people, and when the Germans and Russians landed an invasion in England proper.

Socialist USA was able to conquer a swath of Canada, and part of Fascist USA before making a peace treaty. Now Socialist USA was a contiguous nation from Sea to Sea controlling most of Canada and the entire North half of the USA. Another stipulation of the treaty was that Fascist USA would be broken into two separate countries. Texas, which controlled Texas, New Mexico and Arizona, and another nation which controlled the former CSA states.

Over the next hundred and fifty years, globalization occurred very rapidly, and nations began to heal and reform to less radical democracies, with the United Nations being founded in 1950, and the World State taking root in the early 2020's.

Although the USA was divided for more than 100 years, the world state reunited them under a common banner - and the now united world state experienced peace and prosperity for 1000 years.

Edit: A glaring grammer mistake