What If? Alternative Empires

VictortheMonarch

Victor the Crusader
So this thread is for Alternate Empire in history. So first off, you need a few things

1. Empire Title.

2. Flag of Empire

3. map of Empire

4. summary of empire and how it came into fruition.

knock yourselves out, as I know I for sure will.

try to specify what Culture and Religion the nation follows.
 

VictortheMonarch

Victor the Crusader
Mahārājarate of Indus

iu


0


Summary-

in 1590, there was much unrest in India, specifically, the lands ruled by the Mughal Empire. Europeans had come to the land, bringing trade and wealth, with one other such thing... religion. Many Indian people fell in love with the idea of being able to enter heaven, no matter caste system, and at the lead of this was a 23 year old man named Nakshatra I Dhibar, a begger turned revolutionary. After a protest turned violent in Delhi, Nakshatra led what would be known as the 'Indus Rebellion', where two million Indian peasants, with the help of Portuguese traders, would obliterate the Mughal Empire, killing the Royal family, and sending their Muslim rulers back to the Middle East.

What would follow would be three centuries of Conquest, with a few slight holds when fending off Invaders from the French, Dutch and English. The land of Indus would reach its peak in 1890, and would steadily fall, until the Great Depression, which would Hit the Indian empire hard, leading to the 1934 Communist Uprising. The Royal Family would seek shelter in America, and would lead healthy lives onward, with a few attempted assassinations on them. It would not be until 1998, when Gopal II Dhibar, the grandson of the exhiled and deceased Nakshatra VI Dhibar, would return and lead a rebellion against the Communist dictatorship, restoring the Monarchy constitutionally.

India is rather stable in the modern era, with the fourth largest economy.

Population- 687,092,218 (census, 2020)

GDP- 5,019,021

Leaders-

Mahārāja Gopal II Dhibar - Head of State/Monarch

Prime Minister Conrad Sangma - Leader of the vidhaan

Secretary General Vasishtha Parikh - Leader of the Military

Grand sammaan Chakravarti Kashyap - Leader of the Judicial Branch

Religion-

Catholics - 59%

Protestant - 14%

Sikh - 20%

Atheist - 4%

Muslim - 3%

Race-

Indian - 94%

Caucasian - 3%

African - 1%

Arabic - 2%

Modern Borders-

0
 

ATP

Well-known member
Mahārājarate of Indus

iu


0


Summary-

in 1590, there was much unrest in India, specifically, the lands ruled by the Mughal Empire. Europeans had come to the land, bringing trade and wealth, with one other such thing... religion. Many Indian people fell in love with the idea of being able to enter heaven, no matter caste system, and at the lead of this was a 23 year old man named Nakshatra I Dhibar, a begger turned revolutionary. After a protest turned violent in Delhi, Nakshatra led what would be known as the 'Indus Rebellion', where two million Indian peasants, with the help of Portuguese traders, would obliterate the Mughal Empire, killing the Royal family, and sending their Muslim rulers back to the Middle East.

What would follow would be three centuries of Conquest, with a few slight holds when fending off Invaders from the French, Dutch and English. The land of Indus would reach its peak in 1890, and would steadily fall, until the Great Depression, which would Hit the Indian empire hard, leading to the 1934 Communist Uprising. The Royal Family would seek shelter in America, and would lead healthy lives onward, with a few attempted assassinations on them. It would not be until 1998, when Gopal II Dhibar, the grandson of the exhiled and deceased Nakshatra VI Dhibar, would return and lead a rebellion against the Communist dictatorship, restoring the Monarchy constitutionally.

India is rather stable in the modern era, with the fourth largest economy.

Population- 687,092,218 (census, 2020)

GDP- 5,019,021

Leaders-

Mahārāja Gopal II Dhibar - Head of State/Monarch

Prime Minister Conrad Sangma - Leader of the vidhaan

Secretary General Vasishtha Parikh - Leader of the Military

Grand sammaan Chakravarti Kashyap - Leader of the Judicial Branch

Religion-

Catholics - 59%

Protestant - 14%

Sikh - 20%

Atheist - 4%

Muslim - 3%

Race-

Indian - 94%

Caucasian - 3%

African - 1%

Arabic - 2%

Modern Borders-

0


Communist India in 1934 would change things.Sovietts could invade Afganistan before WW2 taking it.And Take Iran after WW2,let say in 1950.Later - rest of Middle East.
Soviet empire would still fall becouse of economy,unless they start WW3 before Sralin died.Then they would simply lost war and cease to exist.
So,thanks to that scenario we would have 50 million + more commie victims.

I think,scenario in which they never fall would be more interesting - for example,they would take catholics from Poland and Ireland in 19th century.Since there was many engineers among them,they would remain at the top.
WW1 - neutral and selling weapons,after that getting refugees from Russia.
During WW2 they would remain neutral and getting money from England for weapons.Later take refugees from soviet taken Europe.

Thanks to polish and hungarian scientists,get H bomb around 1955.
Third force during cold war,taking african ex-colonies as protectorates./from Portugal ,Belgium,and in 1980 Rhodesia/
Now - first world economy,and taking protectorate over middle Europe after Biden sell it to Putin.First world military after american army get bidenized.

P.S kind of challenge for somebody here - turn into Empire really small country,like Vanuatu or Monaco.
 

ATP

Well-known member
Kingdom-of-Jerusalem-map-1.png


I accidentally messed up a part of it, the part that is missing is the "the Kingdom of Jerusalem would capitalise on this, boosting the economy to exorbent levels, making it the strongest nation of the sixteenth century."

They probably take sea road to India and China via Red sea.It was possible arleady in ancient times.If so - they get more money then those who controlled silk road.
According to what i read,in 13 th century arabs used both roads - sea take 5 months from Persia,land 10 months.And one ship could take the same cargo as 1000 camels.
 

Sergeant Foley

Well-known member
So this thread is for Alternate Empire in history. So first off, you need a few things

1. Empire Title.

2. Flag of Empire

3. map of Empire

4. summary of empire and how it came into fruition.

knock yourselves out, as I know I for sure will.

try to specify what Culture and Religion the nation follows.
Subbed and following this thread quite closely with intriguing interest.
 

evilchumlee

Well-known member
This was interesting. I'll go with a lob-ball pop history sort of thing. If you examine it too hard, it will fall apart.

The United Kingdom of the States of America

greater_kingdom_of_america_monarchist_flag_by_spartan4251_dfii5wb-pre.jpg


(Don't have a map, but i'll describe the territory.)

The grand idea of an American Republic would never materialize. The American Continental Congress had long debated on Articles of Confederation to govern their fledgling nation. Early on in their war for independence, there were debates in Congress to establish Articles of Confederation but Congress could not get a consensus to ratify them. With the British surrender at Yorktown in 1781, a true crossroads was upon the nation.

The French withdrew their support while the British had troops within the nation. The Continental Congress had failed to deliver a system of government, the current American treasury had been emptied, its troops growing weary, all the while General Washington being unsure if the British would resume hostilities. In what should have been a victory celebration for the American colonies, it was an hour of desperation with no resolution in sight.

Washington was well aware that if the colonies could not pull together as a nation, the entire endeavor was for naught. He, his troops, and his nation had suffered through too much to simply lay down and allow their dream die in Congress. With no other options, George Washington regretfully took matters into his own hands. He believed in the cause of creating a Republic, but it appeared that the time was not right.

General Washington marched to Philadelphia with what soldiers he had left, mostly men personally loyal to him. By the end of 1782, Washington declared the nullification of the Continental Congress, naming himself Dictator of the American Colonies. The Army rallied behind him, with nothing else to fight for. Newly invigorated, the Army was ready to fight again. By 1783, the Treaty of Paris officially ended the war. Britain assumed that the American experiment had failed, and felt they no longer needed to commit resources to a war as they certain the colonies would crumble and come crawling back.

Preferring to keep the title of "General", Washington sets about building the damn nation himself. It is still his ultimate goal to establish a Republic, but he refused to allow his work to be squandered by the politicians who couldn't make it happen. He fought the war to create the nation and if they won't build one, he would do it himself. With the support of the Army, and a willingness to use it when necessary, General Washington set about laying the groundwork for a stable Republic. Washington had worked with several of his other revolutionaries to draft a working model for the new state, to the point that a draft of a Constitution was created and Washington was ready to organization an election to step down as dictator.

Before that could happen, his second in command and temporary President of Congress John Adams plotted his demise. General Washington had been murdered, the story given to the public that the British assassinated their beloved leader. Historians would argue that it was Adams responsible, but could find no conclusive evidence. With no clear line of succession and the draft of the Constitution disappearing, Adams seized control. He used the fervor of the people against the British for their alleged crime to claim succession from General Washington. The people begrudgingly accepted, as they knew of the bond that Washington and Adams shared.

Washington's corpse was barely cold before Adams made his declaration, that Congress had once again failed the American people and with the travesty of the British attack on General Washington, immediate and drastic action was needed to secure the nation. Adam's announced, once again, the dissolution of Congress and declared himself King. The people were outraged, but were powerless. Washington had centralized power, intending to hand it off to an elected government but never giving the chance. The Army had become fanatical in their devotion to General Washington and King Adams was correct in his gambit that the fanaticism would continue on. On July 4th, 1791 King Adams was "officially" coronated and by decree, established the United Kingdom of the States of America. A new flag was unveiled, keeping the stripes of the colonial flag while honoring the beloved General Washington with integrating his family crest.

A new aristocracy established itself in the new Kingdom, the rich adopting the status of nobility and titles being bestowed by King Adams.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ATP

ATP

Well-known member
This was interesting. I'll go with a lob-ball pop history sort of thing. If you examine it too hard, it will fall apart.

The United Kingdom of the States of America

greater_kingdom_of_america_monarchist_flag_by_spartan4251_dfii5wb-pre.jpg


(Don't have a map, but i'll describe the territory.)

The grand idea of an American Republic would never materialize. The American Continental Congress had long debated on Articles of Confederation to govern their fledgling nation. Early on in their war for independence, there were debates in Congress to establish Articles of Confederation but Congress could not get a consensus to ratify them. With the British surrender at Yorktown in 1781, a true crossroads was upon the nation.

The French withdrew their support while the British had troops within the nation. The Continental Congress had failed to deliver a system of government, the current American treasury had been emptied, its troops growing weary, all the while General Washington being unsure if the British would resume hostilities. In what should have been a victory celebration for the American colonies, it was an hour of desperation with no resolution in sight.

Washington was well aware that if the colonies could not pull together as a nation, the entire endeavor was for naught. He, his troops, and his nation had suffered through too much to simply lay down and allow their dream die in Congress. With no other options, George Washington regretfully took matters into his own hands. He believed in the cause of creating a Republic, but it appeared that the time was not right.

General Washington marched to Philadelphia with what soldiers he had left, mostly men personally loyal to him. By the end of 1782, Washington declared the nullification of the Continental Congress, naming himself Dictator of the American Colonies. The Army rallied behind him, with nothing else to fight for. Newly invigorated, the Army was ready to fight again. By 1783, the Treaty of Paris officially ended the war. Britain assumed that the American experiment had failed, and felt they no longer needed to commit resources to a war as they certain the colonies would crumble and come crawling back.

Preferring to keep the title of "General", Washington sets about building the damn nation himself. It is still his ultimate goal to establish a Republic, but he refused to allow his work to be squandered by the politicians who couldn't make it happen. He fought the war to create the nation and if they won't build one, he would do it himself. With the support of the Army, and a willingness to use it when necessary, General Washington set about laying the groundwork for a stable Republic. Washington had worked with several of his other revolutionaries to draft a working model for the new state, to the point that a draft of a Constitution was created and Washington was ready to organization an election to step down as dictator.

Before that could happen, his second in command and temporary President of Congress John Adams plotted his demise. General Washington had been murdered, the story given to the public that the British assassinated their beloved leader. Historians would argue that it was Adams responsible, but could find no conclusive evidence. With no clear line of succession and the draft of the Constitution disappearing, Adams seized control. He used the fervor of the people against the British for their alleged crime to claim succession from General Washington. The people begrudgingly accepted, as they knew of the bond that Washington and Adams shared.

Washington's corpse was barely cold before Adams made his declaration, that Congress had once again failed the American people and with the travesty of the British attack on General Washington, immediate and drastic action was needed to secure the nation. Adam's announced, once again, the dissolution of Congress and declared himself King. The people were outraged, but were powerless. Washington had centralized power, intending to hand it off to an elected government but never giving the chance. The Army had become fanatical in their devotion to General Washington and King Adams was correct in his gambit that the fanaticism would continue on. On July 4th, 1791 King Adams was "officially" coronated and by decree, established the United Kingdom of the States of America. A new flag was unveiled, keeping the stripes of the colonial flag while honoring the beloved General Washington with integrating his family crest.

A new aristocracy established itself in the new Kingdom, the rich adopting the status of nobility and titles being bestowed by King Adams.
Not impossible?
But,thanks to that,we would probably not have french Republic,but some kind of french Cromwell instead.
Maybe Robespierre?
Woul Napoleon get killed here before he could try anytching?

What is more important - without both revolutions we probably could avoid 1917,too.
Some dictator in Russia certainly would be less bad then Lenin/Sralin.
 

evilchumlee

Well-known member
Not impossible?
But,thanks to that,we would probably not have french Republic,but some kind of french Cromwell instead.

Maybe, maybe not?

The revolution still WORKED... and for a time there was an earnest effort to build a Republic, and the intention was that Washington WAS absolutely going to step down once Congress could get its shit together and actually ratify something. They just didn't. The French may still have seen that and decided that despite the Americans not succeeding, it wasn't impossible... the colonials were just too busy fighting each other.

It was getting long-winded in the origin, but I was considering some more history and internal structure.

King Adams knew that too much power still rested with the states and worked within those limitations. State Governors were given broad powers over their states, expected mostly to collect taxes for the Crown and supply men and materials to the Army and Navy. There once was much debate over slavery, but the monarchy largely quieted most of it as it would be entirely up the Governors to run the affairs of their state, which largely not in affect another.

The Royal Army of the States of America was drawn from all the states and fought for the Kingdom as a whole, as did the Royal Navy. States were permitted to keep militias as they saw fit, as long as the maintenance of them did not interfere with their duties to the Kingdom.

Adams had dissolved the Continental Congress, but was also wise enough to have a replacement. The people had just fought a war to overthrow a tyrannical King, and Adams genuinely wanted the American Kingdom to be great. He wanted the people to have a voice without directly mirroring the British system they had worked to leave. Under his guidance, The Ministry of States and the People's Assembly were formed as houses of government to allow the populace to have some say in governance. The first government drafted the Articles of Governance, clearly outlining the role of the Crown, the Ministry and the Assembly. The Articles placed theoretical limits on the power of the Crown, but it was understood that the King was not be challenged.

The "UKSA" was it would be come to be known quickly and aggressively grew it's military, setting its sights on expansion both south into Spanish Florida and North, driving the British from the continent once and for all. By the 1820, the UKSA had expanded through Florida, annexed Canada to the North and through a series of small wars and diplomatic posturing obtained the French territories to the west.

My general idea is that the American Kingdom nominally parallels history, but with an even more expansionist and aggressive America, who also just gets lucky... annexing Canada went as easy as Thomas Jefferson thought it would. The American Kingdom also doesn't give back land... by the time the Spanish-American War rolls by, the Kingdom expands to annex Mexico. The Civil War proper doesn't happen, but several uprisings happen, aggressively stomped out by the Royal Army.

By the early 20th century, the UKSA fairly firm holds North America. From there, I don't know what happens... but while I can see the UKSA getting involved in wars, it won't be as liberators... if Kingdom Americans take land, they're keeping it. The only thing I see is in some World War 2ish scenario, the UKSA ends up annexing Japan at the end of the war.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ATP

ATP

Well-known member
Still better then OTL.UKSA would not partition world between them and soviets after WW2,only bomb them to stone age and take entire world.
I prefer that to what happened.Kings never genocided population to get new ideal people,they were fine with old good people working for them.
 

evilchumlee

Well-known member
Still better then OTL.UKSA would not partition world between them and soviets after WW2,only bomb them to stone age and take entire world.
I prefer that to what happened.Kings never genocided population to get new ideal people,they were fine with old good people working for them.

Yeah. For the most part, UKSA is kind of a hybrid of the British Empire and the Roman Empire... you have a King who built it was WAS a British subject, but also with a group of people who were big on creating a new Rome.

I think the structure allows for a more Imperial-type administration with the States (including the annexed territories) with States with diverse identities... the nation develops into States being more country-like with each one having their own national identity in addition to their loyalty to the crown.

King Adams never cared about controlling the lives of people. He wanted to expand his domain. I see the culture of the UKSA as being a bit more Romanesque in that the Crown doesn't care what gods you worship or what language you speak... pay taxes, and support the Royal Army and Navy, and you're good to go.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ATP

ATP

Well-known member
Yeah. For the most part, UKSA is kind of a hybrid of the British Empire and the Roman Empire... you have a King who built it was WAS a British subject, but also with a group of people who were big on creating a new Rome.

I think the structure allows for a more Imperial-type administration with the States (including the annexed territories) with States with diverse identities... the nation develops into States being more country-like with each one having their own national identity in addition to their loyalty to the crown.

King Adams never cared about controlling the lives of people. He wanted to expand his domain. I see the culture of the UKSA as being a bit more Romanesque in that the Crown doesn't care what gods you worship or what language you speak... pay taxes, and support the Royal Army and Navy, and you're good to go.
If they come to Poland now,i would be tempted to become traitor.....becouse it is better deal then any polish goverment from 1926.I think,that the same would go for rest of the world,including current USA.
 

evilchumlee

Well-known member
I've been kicking this around in my head, figured i'd add more figuring history plays out weirdly similar but different.

I was thinking some more about how the UKSA actually works.

The King theoretically has absolute power, but most American Kings knew to not test it. The rebel spirit was still strong among the American people and overstepping power... especially brazenly... would only lead to unrest. The Ministry and Assembly did actually do most of the Kingdom-wide governance, although the central government left much to the States.

Succession laws became complicated over time. King Adams initially intended the monarchy to work much as the British monarchy, expecting his eldest son to assume the throne. However Adams, perhaps lacking foresight, never actually decreed or codified the laws of succession for the new Kingdom. He may have simply assumed it was understood. In 1801, King Adams was assassinated. History would never know exactly who was behind it.

The eldest son of John Adams, John Quincy Adams, was quick to assume the crown. "John II" as he had become known did not command much respect, being seen largely as a spoiled Prince. Lord Thomas Jefferson, Prime Minister of the States was vocal in his opposition of John II assuming the throne. He argued there was no legal precedent, there was no royal decree and there was no legislation in the houses of governance. In the first test of royal power, John II publicly ordered the execution of Jefferson. His ordered was ignored and the Army moved to protect Jefferson. A hero of the revolution garnered much more respect than a spoiled brat of a prince.

Lord Jefferson went before the Ministry not to declare himself King, but to call them to action to establish succession laws. John II attempted to decree succession laws of his own, but was ignored. Both the Ministry and Assembly quickly first passed a resolution to not recognize John II as King. John II tried to overrule them but had no actual authority, and was arrested. With no sitting King, Lord Jefferson took to the stewardship of the Kingdom to oversee the establishment of the laws of succession.

It took roughly a year, but succession laws were agreed upon and Jefferson approved. The new laws of succession would put some power into the Houses of Governance. Succession was not to be based on blood. Rather, the sitting King would name a successor. The Houses of Governance would both need to confirm the successor through a simple majority vote. The Houses of Governance could also name a successor of their own, requiring a simple majority in the Assembly and a unanimous agreement from the Ministry. In the event that a King perished or abdicated without naming a successor, the Prime Minister of the States would assume the throne as the presumed nominee of the Ministry. The King ruled for life, with a theoretical mechanism for the Houses of Governance to remove the King that would never be tested.

With the laws now in place, the Houses of Governance recognized Thomas Jefferson as King.

Organization of the government:

The Ministry of States was composed to two Ministers from each State, appointed by the Governor. Ministers were stipulated to be Nobility, be it by birth, Royal decree, or Ministry bestowment. State Governors appointed Ministers as they saw fit, having complete control over their states representation in the Ministry.

State Governors would be appointed by the King, but served for life once appointed. Governors held near total control of their states, and must be Nobility. In the event that a new State is created/conquered that has no established Nobility, the King has full authority to name the Governor, pulling them from Nobility of existing States or declaring a local Noble.

The Nobility were not part of the government proper, but were necessary for its function. The initial Nobles were named by General Washington and passed on through blood. Nobility could also be bestowed by the Ministry of States as they saw fit, or by declaration of the King. The Nobility differed mostly from the commoners in being allowed to own land, and to serve on the Ministry.

The People's Assembly was the lower House of Governance, created to give something a voice to the common people. It's power was limited but proved the be the last real vestige of the original American dream for a Republic. Each state was given representation based on population, with representatives being elected through votes from the common people. The exact voting structure was up to the State Governor to decide and while it would be easy to corrupt, the power of the Assembly was so minimal that interference would outweigh the benefits of the people having an illusion of power. Over time, the Assembly would grow in power somewhat as the powers of the King declined.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ATP

ATP

Well-known member
I like it,it is roman solution which gave their Empire best emperors for almost 100 years - Cezar choosed his heir,and ruled with him.
When we have Kings again,it should be something like that.
 

evilchumlee

Well-known member
I like it,it is roman solution which gave their Empire best emperors for almost 100 years - Cezar choosed his heir,and ruled with him.
When we have Kings again,it should be something like that.

Yeah my idea for it is that the Americans DID fight to create a Republic. It failed here, but the people still have a desire for input. So they at least have something of an illusion of some input in that the King's successor needs to be confirmed through the Houses of Governance... i'm seeing at least oncethrough history the Houses DO successfully overrule a King's named successor.

I'm trying to figure out a line of Kings that can somewhat resemble real history while being different.

General Washington (is the Ceasar stand in, never being "Emperor") -> John Adams -> Thomas Jefferson

We have those established. I HAVE to have King Andrew Jackson in there, so he could come after Jefferson dies. This might be the one where the Houses overrule the King, perhaps setting precedent.

Jefferson declares his son, Eston Jefferson to be his successor. Eston Hemmings lived a much different life in this world, he was not a slave. King Jefferson was able to be more open about his uh, love life and quite frankly didn't care that he produced a mixed-race child. The rest of the population of the Kingdom... were not as ok with it. When Jefferson names Eston as his successor, the Kingdom is NOT ok with having a half-black King. Andrew Jackson, a noble serving in the Ministry, is particularly outspoken about it. King Jefferson was to be generally benevolent and still had some of his old revolutionary beliefs, so he wasn't going to have Jackson killed, despite not liking him.

King Jefferson decided it would be in the best interests of the Kingdom to let the succession laws he himself helped draft play out. To attempt to overrule it in the very first time they would be tested would damage the nation. Jefferson would live to see the Houses overrule his named successor, and die shortly thereafter. While disappointed, especially with their pick of Jackson, he knew the precedent needed to be set if the American Kingdom were to survive.

King Jackson would be... controversial and tyrannical.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ATP

ATP

Well-known member
Yeah my idea for it is that the Americans DID fight to create a Republic. It failed here, but the people still have a desire for input. So they at least have something of an illusion of some input in that the King's successor needs to be confirmed through the Houses of Governance... i'm seeing at least oncethrough history the Houses DO successfully overrule a King's named successor.

I'm trying to figure out a line of Kings that can somewhat resemble real history while being different.

General Washington (is the Ceasar stand in, never being "Emperor") -> John Adams -> Thomas Jefferson

We have those established. I HAVE to have King Andrew Jackson in there, so he could come after Jefferson dies. This might be the one where the Houses overrule the King, perhaps setting precedent.

Jefferson declares his son, Eston Jefferson to be his successor. Eston Hemmings lived a much different life in this world, he was not a slave. King Jefferson was able to be more open about his uh, love life and quite frankly didn't care that he produced a mixed-race child. The rest of the population of the Kingdom... were not as ok with it. When Jefferson names Eston as his successor, the Kingdom is NOT ok with having a half-black King. Andrew Jackson, a noble serving in the Ministry, is particularly outspoken about it. King Jefferson was to be generally benevolent and still had some of his old revolutionary beliefs, so he wasn't going to have Jackson killed, despite not liking him.

King Jefferson decided it would be in the best interests of the Kingdom to let the succession laws he himself helped draft play out. To attempt to overrule it in the very first time they would be tested would damage the nation. Jefferson would live to see the Houses overrule his named successor, and die shortly thereafter. While disappointed, especially with their pick of Jackson, he knew the precedent needed to be set if the American Kingdom were to survive.

King Jackson would be... controversial and tyrannical.
Well,he was controversial in OTL,but maybe this time he would kill banks for good - it would certainly help America,if they killed of Wall Street before they take over.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top