Alternate History NESes; Spout some ideas!

[Xen]

*thier also the fact that gallic culture orgininated in swizterland, not gaul that need sot be rectified on that map* if gallic culture, soemhow did get thier, it sliklly by the time it developed, with lanck of real indo-europeans comeign intot he area, that the pre-indoeuropean cultures liek the basques and Etruscans, would have been more then a match to drive them away by then.

 

[Xen]

In the "No Mediterranean" world, so many cultures are packed tightly together, like Egypt and Greece. Would this have birthed an Egypto-Hellenic culture?

@Xen

A nomad lifestyle in theory would be prosperous there in the basin. You have wide open plains, with tons of game, and fertile land filled with lakes and rivers full of fish. THey would have eventually settled down...

thats not true- it would have mostlyl been scrubland and desert, except around those few larg elakes, until you reached the atlantic basin- i remind you, with no med sea, the sahara desert would stretch for a very long way north- well into even italy, meanign the etruscans, or villa-novans at least, woudl have never settled thier- and, more to the point, woudl offer no insentive for the indo-europeans to wander over to he area.

 

[Xen]

*one has to remember- when geogrpahy changes, all history changes very, very significantlly- evne somthing as little as california being an island at the time of the spanish conquests has huge ramifacations- because california, int hat stae, could have becoem a mighty, and propsperous out post od SPanish colonial rule.

 

[Amenhotep7]

What reason is there that the Sahara should have spread farther north? These lakes are large, combine that with the moisture from the rivers and the Atlantic and you get a relatively temperate climate, one would think...

Edit:

@Xen

I know. That's why I like making geography changes. Here's another: What if the English Channel was non existant? France and Engalnd connected...

 

[North King]

Why need the Indo Europeans stop there? Likely they would have gone around, to the north of the Carpathians and into Germany and Gaul like they probably did in OTL. The Hellenes would have settled around the Med and Black sea areas.

 

[North King]

*one has to remember- when geogrpahy changes, all history changes very, very significantlly- evne somthing as little as california being an island at the time of the spanish conquests has huge ramifacations- because california, int hat stae, could have becoem a mighty, and propsperous out post od SPanish colonial rule.

That is true, but just because you want the Etruscans to survive doesn't mean they would.

This change does change history massively in my scenario. Europe is no longer supreme, for one.

 

[Xen]

Why need the Indo Europeans stop there? Likely they would have gone around, to the north of the Carpathians and into Germany and Gaul like they probably did in OTL. The Hellenes would have settled around the Med and Black sea areas.

they didnt do that in our timeline- they headed through greece into southern and central europe, and only had marginal success heading op into the carpathians and beyond- eventually he finnio-ugartic culture pushed out the indo europepeans, and estbalished itself as th e primary influncer of the area, with a weird mix of the two in most of the area

 

[Amenhotep7]

I had a thought: With all the Hellenes in the basin, would the hoplite style of warfare come about on such flat terrain? Probably, but what about when thew Persians come? No mountainous Greek peninsula to hinder them, just open, (maybe hilly) basin...

 

[North King]

What reason is there that the Sahara should have spread farther north? These lakes are large, combine that with the moisture from the rivers and the Atlantic and you get a relatively temperate climate, one would think...

The areas around the lakes are rather Temperate. But the vast majority of Southern Europe would be a desert. Think about it, even with the Med nearby in our timeline, it's very dry. Imagine with even less moisture...

Edit:

@Xen

I know. That's why I like making geography changes. Here's another: What if the English Channel was non existant? France and Engalnd connected...

Likely a stronger Gallic civilization that might have been much more difficult for the Romans to fight off.

 

[Xen]

That is true, but just because you want the Etruscans to survive doesn't mean they would.

I dont want the etruscans to survive- optimally, the Romans woudl still destroy them- the Romans being indo-european, but religiouslly influenced by the etruscans

This change does change history massively in my scenario. Europe is no longer supreme, for one.

not really- it just means that the persians never beomc a viable threat to european civlization, whiel the native europeans get a head start on building sea vessals to ply the atlantic

 

[North King]

I had a thought: With all the Hellenes in the basin, would the hoplite style of warfare come about on such flat terrain? Probably, but what about when thew Persians come? No mountainous Greek peninsula to hinder them, just open, (maybe hilly) basin...

You're forgetting the massive cliffs that the shore would present. The Greeks would drive the Persians away, probably, as cavalry would be very much more present in their culture in this terrain, but they could not conquer much upwards. Too difficult to supply and even to fight.

they didnt do that in our timeline- they headed through greece into southern and central europe, and only had marginal success heading op into the carpathians and beyond- eventually he finnio-ugartic culture pushed out the indo europepeans, and estbalished itself as th e primary influncer of the area, with a weird mix of the two in most of the area

Northern Europe provides a perfect place for them, it would seem. Besides which the Finns were not highly developed at the time; the Ugric culture came with the steppe nomads.

The Indos would have come around the easier way, and arrived later maybe, but still in significant force.

I dont want the etruscans to survive- optimally, the Romans woudl still destroy them- the Romans being indo-european, but religiouslly influenced by the etruscans

Ironically that is what happens in my scenario.

not really- it just means that the persians never beomc a viable threat to european civlization, whiel the native europeans get a head start on building sea vessals to ply the atlantic

That's not what happens. The native European areas would not have been influenced by the civilized areas and would have take much longer to develop, all the Romans and Greeks would be located in the Med Basin, and no further. The Basques and Gauls did not historically build any ships on the Atlantic, they wouldn't have here, either.

 

[Xen]

Northern Europe provides a perfect place for them, it would seem. Besides which the Finns were not highly developed at the time; the Ugric culture came with the steppe nomads.

The Indos would have come around the easier way, and arrived later maybe, but still in significant force.

if the indos coem later- then they face more advanced, and harder resistence

Ironically that is what happens in my scenario.

except it wouldnt have happnd- the etruscans wouldnt have been thier, because the vill-novans woudl not have settled thie rin the first place

That's not what happens. The native European areas would not have been influenced by the civilized areas and would have take much longer to develop, all the Romans and Greeks would be located in the Med Basin, and no further. The Basques and Gauls did not historically build any ships on the Atlantic, they wouldn't have here, either.

the minoans did- and they built some very advanced ships- and they built them in big numbers, with appenrtlly, no help fromt he near eastern civlizations

that said, not all the cultures of pre-indoeurppean europe were the same- the minoans,Etruscans, and basques were all distinct, apperntlly one fo a kind entities, though the basques and etruscans do share theological similarties, thier languages and cultures are still vastlly different- we cant at all predict how thier civlizatiosn woudl have developed, or how many would have- but if the villa-novans and minoans are any indication, once agriculture was found, it woudl have been very, very fast.

 

[Xen]

*that said, gallic ships -large and well built ones at that- are recorded by Caesar as sailing the atlantic coast line

 

[Sgt.Hellfish]

Well i do know that Britain had primitive ships before teh romans set fot on the island and a large trade industry. Its a common misconception that the romans brought things like roads and irrigation etc to western and northern europe. I can speak for Britain in this the mainland im not so sure about.

 

[North King]

if the indos coem later- then they face more advanced, and harder resistence
except it wouldnt have happnd- the etruscans wouldnt have been thier, because the vill-novans woudl not have settled thie rin the first place

Who says they wouldn't?

the minoans did- and they built some very advanced ships- and they built them in big numbers, with appenrtlly, no help fromt he near eastern civlizations

Ahem, another Medditerrenean civ, thereby confined to the Med basin.

that said, not all the cultures of pre-indoeurppean europe were the same- the minoans,Etruscans, and basques were all distinct, apperntlly one fo a kind entities, though the basques and etruscans do share theological similarties, thier languages and cultures are still vastlly different- we cant at all predict how thier civlizatiosn woudl have developed, or how many would have- but if the villa-novans and minoans are any indication, once agriculture was found, it woudl have been very, very fast.

Doubtful; the cultures of the area did not grow quickly in OTL, in this timeline, without the influence of civilized Italy, it would have been slower.

I stand by my points of Gallic France and England, German Germany, Slavic Russia, Hellenic Black sea basin/Northeast Med sea basin, Latin Western Med basin, Egyptian southeast.

 

[North King]

*that said, gallic ships -large and well built ones at that- are recorded by Caesar as sailing the atlantic coast line

True, but there was no incentive to expand across the Atlantic, and there wouldn't have been in this timeline either. Except perhaps a little more competition, but negligible, as the sailing ships of the time could not sail across the atlantic. We still have a Europe confined, mediocre advanced, rather backward compared to India civlization, who even if they did discover America would not be able to expand quickly.

 

[North King]

Well i do know that Britain had primitive ships before teh romans set fot on the island and a large trade industry. Its a common misconception that the romans brought things like roads and irrigation etc to western and northern europe. I can speak for Britain in this the mainland im not so sure about.

That's true. But they probably would not have gone much further afield than a small part of North America at most.

 

[Xen]

Who says they wouldn't?

logic says so- the villa novans and other proto-european groups werent the habit of wandering the desert in search for wonderful places to live- that is, after all, why they ende dup in europe to begin with

Ahem, another Medditerrenean civ, thereby confined to the Med basin.

but the poitn still stands- thier plenty of evidence to support that prot-europeans had a can-dp attitude, and were perfectlyl capable of not only advaceing, but doing so at a rapid pace

[/quote]
Doubtful; the cultures of the area did not grow quickly in OTL, in this timeline, without the influence of civilized Italy, it would have been slower.[qupte]

you mean your indo-european groups didnt grow quicklly in our time line- the non-indo-europeans spread out far and wide, and until the indo-europeans came in, apperntlly desperate as hell, and siplaced many of them, with the strongest non-indoeuropean peoples survivng the onslaught, and going on intot he pages of recorded history as major influencial entities- except the basques, but the apperntlyl traded in noterity for longevity

I stand by my points of Gallic France and England, German Germany, Slavic Russia, Hellenic Black sea basin/Northeast Med sea basin, Latin Western Med basin, Egyptian southeast.

except for greece, noen fo those woudl have ever devleoped.

 

[North King]

logic says so- the villa novans and other proto-european groups werent the habit of wandering the desert in search for wonderful places to live- that is, after all, why they ende dup in europe to begin with

My mistake, I was still talking about indoeuros. Seems to me that your villa novans (you have any article on them so I could learn a bit while arguing? ) and etruscans would settle in the first place the looked good; the Med basin with it's lakes is a convienient substitute for Italy and Iberia.

but the poitn still stands- thier plenty of evidence to support that prot-europeans had a can-dp attitude, and were perfectlyl capable of not only advaceing, but doing so at a rapid pace

They could have, but there would be little incentive and little jump start from a nice big civilization in contact to the south.

you mean your indo-european groups didnt grow quicklly in our time line- the non-indo-europeans spread out far and wide, and until the indo-europeans came in, apperntlly desperate as hell, and siplaced many of them, with the strongest non-indoeuropean peoples survivng the onslaught, and going on intot he pages of recorded history as major influencial entities- except the basques, but the apperntlyl traded in noterity for longevity

except for greece, noen fo those woudl have ever devleoped.

I think the Gauls would have as well; those nations would have been confined to Iberia and the Med basin, with little or no prospect for leaving.

 

[Amenhotep7]

@NK

Who says no civ would expand out of the basin? It's not as though they'd face sheer cliffs. They'd face cliffs, but cliffs are traversable.