| Author |
Message |
    
Revz
| | Posted on Friday, March 25, 2011 - 09:18 am: | 
|
You do know that the Mason Dixon line is much further north than most people realize... partly in PA.
Actually defined the new border, and that the Mason-Dixon line was not originally surveyed for the Civil War and as so mentioned to add a theoretical wide blue-gray line in the "sand", so to speak.
Contrived, theoretical, and unplanned consequences were a few of my underlying themes in this "parallel" story...
I think the first of those two have been discussed quite nicely(and the mention of Korea is a good start to the third) 
(Message edited by revz on March 25, 2011)
(Message edited by revz on March 25, 2011) |
Hughlysses
| | Posted on Friday, March 25, 2011 - 09:30 am: |
|
How does it pan out now? How long do the sides engage with limited power against each other? Do the countries run parallel? Do other countries get involved because of the need for goods from either side?
What say you now?
I think you need to write an "alternative history" book or talk Harry Turtledove into writing another.
BTW- Turtledove's book "Guns of the South" is an excellent read (if you are fairly familiar with the major battles and people involved). It's a far-fetched premise for the South winning the war, but the events following the CSA's victory and the attitude of the participants is very interesting.
He's also written several other books examining what would have happened had the South won (which aren't really sequels to the above book), examining things like WWI and who would have wound up fighting who. |
Sayitaintso
| | Posted on Friday, March 25, 2011 - 09:39 am: |
|
I liked all of Harry Turtledove's books. You just need to accept his initial premise, once you do that the stories are very good.
He wrote a while series of book on the premise that the Civil War was won by the south and both the USA and CSA continued through the first and second world wars and each country was drawn into the wars on different sides. |
Slaughter
| | Posted on Friday, March 25, 2011 - 09:54 am: |
|
I think we'd all e-petition the opposition and declare the winner on the basis of the petitions sent online.
I mean, isn't that how the current slackers think that things are accomplished? |
Britchri10
| | Posted on Friday, March 25, 2011 - 10:12 am: |
|
Couldn't we all just "like" one side or the other on FB? |
Cowboy
| | Posted on Friday, March 25, 2011 - 10:26 am: |
|
Does any one know when the Mid-East countries stoped suported the slave trade? |
Sifo
| | Posted on Friday, March 25, 2011 - 10:42 am: |
|
Does any one know when the Mid-East countries stoped suported the slave trade?
When the sand was turned to glass? |
Blake
| | Posted on Friday, March 25, 2011 - 05:27 pm: |
|
Grumpy,
>>> That's a tricky one Blake, would you say that about the Libyans that our countries are currently trying to help?
>>>I guess it's a point of view thing, one man's terrorist being another's freedom fighter.
I don't follow. I didn't assign right or wrong, just noted that armed rebellion is an act of war. It may be righteous or dubious, but it's always an act of war. |
Blake
| | Posted on Friday, March 25, 2011 - 05:33 pm: |
|
RevZ,
>>> What say you now?
I've never been much for fantasy role playing. The war was mostly inland, riverboat gunboats played a significant role. Mostly railroads though. It wouldn't have stopped the inevitable, the Union victory. Plain and simple fact is that as gallant and brave and fierce as the confederates were, they never had a chance to win the war. They really just wanted to achieve a treaty. It's why some still try to demonize Lincoln. He refused to go along with their plan. |
Sifo
| | Posted on Friday, March 25, 2011 - 06:35 pm: |
|
It may be righteous or dubious, but it's always an act of war.
It turns out that it can be a "kinetic military action" too. Someday I hope to understand the difference.
|
|
