Alternate History NESes; Spout some ideas!

[North King]

@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.

The climate; the terrain; the supply difficulties, all of this would have made cross cliff empires very difficult to maintain and constantly under siege. the only area where the two could blen easily are where the rivers deposit enough silt to make smooth transitions. It's just like how most civs of their day in OTL avoided mountain ranges.

 

[Xen]

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.

A)they probably came from Spain and the atlantic coastline- with no incentive to go into souther europe, one imagines the etruscans developing in either the coastal regions, or fertiel heartlands of france- no real articals, i knwo of them mainlyl from books read whiel still int he book store, and I have yet to get one of them yet

B)its not at all conveint- its in the middle fo a god-damn desert.

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

-fertile, and resource rich land, and more time to settle and develop it- once agriculture gets started, thier would be little stopping them, contact or no contact formt he south- it isnt needed, as SUmeria duelly illustrates in own coming into being

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.

why wuld the gauls develop in the middle fo a desert mountian range that seperates fertile europe from what is mostlyl a desert wateland with a few fiarlyl fertile regions around a few large lakes?

 

[North King]

A)they probably came from Spain and the atlantic coastline- with no incentive to go into souther europe, one imagines the etruscans developing in either the coastal regions, or fertiel heartlands of france- no real articals, i knwo of them mainlyl from books read whiel still int he book store, and I have yet to get one of them yet

B)its not at all conveint- its in the middle fo a god-damn desert.

A) Sounds more likely that they would go to the coast and the lakes.

B) It's a lake. Much more convienient than trekking through a desert to reach the Atlantic coast.

-fertile, and resource rich land, and more time to settle and develop it- once agriculture gets started, thier would be little stopping them, contact or no contact formt he south- it isnt needed, as SUmeria duelly illustrates in own coming into being

There would not have been any real incentive to start agriculture. Why is there little stopping them, considering how easily outclassed they were in real life? NONE of the civs on the atlantic managed to develop a huge empire until the 1400s, there is no reason to suggest they would be any different.

why wuld the gauls develop in the middle fo a desert mountian range that seperates fertile europe from what is mostlyl a desert wateland with a few fiarlyl fertile regions around a few large lakes?

I'm not saying they would have developed there. I'm saying they would have been another Indo-euro civ to develop.

 

[Xen]

A) Sounds more likely that they would go to the coast and the lakes.

B) It's a lake. Much more convienient than trekking through a desert to reach the Atlantic coast.

your forgetting- the proto indieuropean apeerntlyl started as migrants formt he atlantic coast to begin with- if anything, your argument supports the absence of indo-europeans in europe

There would not have been any real incentive to start agriculture. Why is there little stopping them, considering how easily outclassed they were in real life? NONE of the civs on the atlantic managed to develop a huge empire until the 1400s, there is no reason to suggest they would be any different.

A)they were set back by indo-european invasions

B)no other states made significant EMPIRES until that time either- but to hell with empires, I'm talking cultures, and civlizations- nations dont factor into my argument at all- they dont need to

I'm not saying they would have developed there. I'm saying they would have been another Indo-euro civ to develop.

then they wouldnt be the guals then, would they?


this, IMO, is a more reaosbaale map fpor what CULTURES woudl look like in the rgion

dark blue Green Iberio-Basque
red-Villa Novan/Etruscan
light purple berber-sicilliot-villa novan
medium blue sicilliot

Light blue Mino-Cycladic
Dark Purple-norther cycladic
"throw -up green"Dorio-Hellenic
orangeAnatolian/proto-hittite

 

[Xen]

*note, by 14'00s, i assuem you mean 1400 BCE

 

[North King]

your forgetting- the proto indieuropean apeerntlyl started as migrants formt he atlantic coast to begin with- if anything, your argument supports the absence of indo-europeans in europe

What the ****? You just turned them around from Armenians to Atlanteans!?

A)they were set back by indo-european invasions

B)no other states made significant EMPIRES until that time either- but to hell with empires, I'm talking cultures, and civlizations- nations dont factor into my argument at all- they dont need to

I'm making the point about civs on the Atlantic coast. And I'm talking advancements in techonology, which was what this particular portion of the debate was about.

then they wouldnt be the guals then, would they?

Yah, they would, I only said they would not be developing in a desert.

this, IMO, is a more reaosbaale map fpor what CULTURES woudl look like in the rgion

dark blue Green Iberio-Basque
red-Villa Novan/Etruscan
light purple berber-sicilliot-villa novan
medium blue sicilliot

Light blue Mino-Cycladic
Dark Purple-norther cycladic
"throw -up green"Dorio-Hellenic
orangeAnatolian/proto-hittite

Seems like you just have a hell of a lot of Pre Indo cultures there. Who says the med basin would not have been overrun as historically? It's terrain, open and flat, would have been even more conducive to Indo migrations. Thus the Hellenic area would have been overrun, and the Minoans would have been devastated by invasion and eruption, just like in real history.

Other than that I might agree with it, but a lot of the things there are IMHO unreasonable.

 

[North King]

*note, by 14'00s, i assuem you mean 1400 BCE

Nope. 1400s CE. There weren't even city states in the area in 1400 BCE.

 

[Xen]

What the ****? You just turned them around from Armenians to Atlanteans!?

no- non indo europeans are effectilyl coastal atlantic migrants, and woudl have ahd ample access to the bounties of europe

the indo-europeans had no such luxury, and woudl have stayed rleitivlly contained until later in thier development

I'm making the point about civs on the Atlantic coast. And I'm talking advancements in techonology, which was what this particular portion of the debate was about.

A)your forgetting4 factors fo technological development, and cultural acceptence- all fo which the proto-europeans showed a particuler luckyness for having cultures that that accepted tech- to note, however, these 4 criteria are
-adavtage compared with current technology; indo european civs were somtimes, for some reason, hesitant to take on new advaces in technology- civ of the prot-europeans showed an aptitude for taking it, except in the cas eof the basques
-social value and prestige- proto indoeuropean cultures orginzed themselves early on into structures not founded on tribal kinship, but of society, and perosnal prestiege, and as such looked for any advatage they coudl get to further it- where as, as said before, indo-europeans operated off a tribal base, orginized by power according to blood- not the proto-europeans didnt have this, but it was to far less of an extent- just take alook a tminoa...
-compatability with vested interest- well, this is rather case specific
-ease of which the technology can be observedm, and produced- the proto europeans of western europe have, oddly, a geogrpahic advatage- crops, and technology of egypt shoudl florish in a climate that is similer to th emany oasis' under egyptian control, and spread rapidlly- upon which once reachign the proto-europeans, whom operated in a more statelly manner then the indo-europeans, woudl be able to quicklly adopt, and produce said technology

Yah, they would, I only said they would not be developing in a desert.

no they wouldnt- the gallic civ devleoped just as much based off influcen from med sea civs, as it did becaus eof its ecat location of devleopment- the runic alphabet, for example, is based on the etruscan alpahbet- the gallic religion hgas close ties with both the greek, and the etruscan religions- if the gauls werent in thier exact place of devlopment, they woudl never be guals in the first place


[/qiote[
Seems like you just have a hell of a lot of Pre Indo cultures there.[/quote]
yep

Who says the med basin would not have been overrun as historically? It's terrain, open and flat,would have been even more conducive to Indo migrations.

and a desolate desert for significant stretches- and the indo-europeans in real life prooved they were unwillign to cross such difficulties

Thus the Hellenic area would have been overrun, and the Minoans would have been devastated by invasion and eruption, just like in real history.

in a lanf based med basin, a volcanic eruption woudl have little impact on the minoan civlization (tidal waves fromt he voclanic eruption are what damaged minoa- obviouslly a mute point in this geography), which prooved easilyl enough that it could resist indo-european invasion through technological innovation

 

[Xen]

Nope. 1400s CE. There weren't even city states in the area in 1400 BCE.

*cough* proto-europeans *cough* by then they wer eoginizing in southern spain and italy into centrilized areas of development

 

[North King]

*yawn*

Guess we simply disagree on migration paths, and that we'll never come to consensus. Not going to bother to pursue further. Xen, you are unconvincable.

 

[Xen]

sheer stubborness is what saved my ancestors from hannibal - and it continues to serve us well

 

[Amenhotep7]

Well, if we cannot agree on migratory paths, we should draw up timelines for both possibilities, eh?

 

[Xen]

Well, if we cannot agree on migratory paths, we should draw up timelines for both possibilities, eh?

I dont particulery want to go to the trouble; both fo them woudl be bull****, because wedont know for a fact how the cultures spread woudl develop in different areas- only that they woudl develop differentlly.
besides, alternate history shoul dbe based on plausable events that coudl have happned, instead of geological chance happenings that make everythign else in history dependent on thier happening.

so if you guys want to go to the trouble, go for it; byt mu own veiw is that anything beyond our little cultural argument will be bull****, and I wont be part of it.

 

[das]

Alternate Geography is intersting, as are alternate migrations. Btw, Amen, congrats for reviving this thread, after SKILORD disappeared it was beginning to die.

As for South America plus Africa, I think I've read somewhere long ago about a timeline in which South America was not connected via Panama to North America, and was somewhat further east, where it merged with Subsaharan Africa (minus the Horn of Africa). Meaning that North Africa and Abyssinia will still be where they are in the OTL, and there is this huge "Atlantis" in the middle of the Atlantic Ocean.

Speaking of Atlantis... I've read somewhere that it was really in Indonesia. So, what if the "Sunda" (all the Indonesian Islands merged into one landmass) survived?

 

[erez87]

Speaking of Atlantis... I've read somewhere that it was really in Indonesia. So, what if the "Sunda" (all the Indonesian Islands merged into one landmass) survived?

And I saw a TV show saying it's South America...

ANYWAY


You guys are forgetting 1 thing. If there is no mediterian, and i'm sure only a small amount of the water in it are from rivers around, where would all the rest of the water be? In other places across the world... Than it will change more... probably the area where Netherlands is would be underwater mostly, as well as several other low places...

 

[das]

It could evaporate... but I think I agree. We can sink China now, leading to Asian island-based city state republics with occasional emperors!

 

[erez87]

new map from me no mediterian, no some more other areas that are now neither flooded, or flooded but frozen...

 

[erez87]

A lot more areas can be flooded... but I wasn't sure where more should I flood

 

[das]

IMHO, somebody should start a NES with this new world map.

Also IMHO, you should sink some land by the Mississippi and the Amazon. Possibly parts of Subsaharan Africa as well. And, as previously said, China. Also the Vladivostock area, it gets flooded every year anyway. I also am irritated by the fact that Australians have medical helicopters or something, and we don't. Sink it too.

Anyway, to switch to "Alternate Biology" (or something) - what if the horses died out in the Old World, yet survived in the New one? It might be a significant change of roles. I expect Sumeria to survive longer, for example, as should the Old Kingdom Egypt and Harappa - ofcourse, those three will be replaced by successor states. Now, in America, it will get interesting as the cultures that will come out will be neither the OTL cultures there, neither the Old World equivalents. Do you want me to develop this idea?

 

[erez87]

Instead of horses in the old world some wierd type of Camel could survive. Some merge between Camels and Horses. After all a lot more is deserts while horses, well they lived in the area...

Horses surviving in America? Why they were gone anyway?