Alternate History Thread II...

[Thlayli]

And the CZ map:

Excuse the JPEG.

 

[North King]

If you have a civilized zone in Mexico, then you absolutely must have one in Peru. No exceptions.

Also, the Indus should be red.

 

[Symphony D.]

I can't really see either Egypt or the Fertile Crescent being relatively abandoned due to Etna. Even if the mountain just flat collapsed it would be a fraction of the equivilent of a supervolcano in terms of ejecta, and although Ash would be heavy, it would pollute neither the Nile, Tigris, or Euphrates for very long at all, and once it had all settled, would in fact yield a bumper crop due to the mineral richness. Thera was about as big as it can get short of a supervolcano (and even then fell far short), was much closer to these regions, and had nowhere near the impact described here.

I really only see a megacatastrophe working out if, again, most of the human race in the region is physically wiped out. Say, after Lake Toba, Campi Flegrei's 33,000 BC eruption was similar to Lake Toba's 2,800 km³ instead of its OTL mere 80km³, depopulating most of the Mediterranean entirely and leaving Asians or Africans to gradually resettle into the area. It would probably produce a millennium long little ice-age and generally greatly ****** resettlement of Europe and the Mediterranean as a whole.

Or you could have Campi Flegrei erupt again somewhere in the 500km³ - 1000km³ range in around 4000 BC, as that'd far outdo either Etna or Thera (or Tambora, Krakatoa, et al). If facts aren't too big a deal though, then I guess what you have now works.

 

[North King]

Abandoned is a harsh term. I think he's thinking that more the growth of agriculture would be stunted. After all, it was a gradual thing, and if all of a sudden those crops that they were starting to tend to weren't productive, then there wasn't much point to tending them further, now, was there?

 

[Insane_Panda]

Why is it saved as a jpeg?

 

[Symphony D.]

Abandoned is a harsh term. I think he's thinking that more the growth of agriculture would be stunted. After all, it was a gradual thing, and if all of a sudden those crops that they were starting to tend to weren't productive, then there wasn't much point to tending them further, now, was there?

You know the sides of volcanos are often inhabitated because the soil is excellent for farming, right? Ash kills the current crop. With humans around to plant new crops, the next batch will immediately grow much better in the resultant ash-enriched soil. Atmospheric alterations at least in terms of light don't do much at this scale, and it's only if it produces global temperature changes on a pretty good scale and thusly effects the weather that it might become exacerbated by drought. Otherwise, the ground effects last a year, maybe two. These particular regions have withstood how many droughts and famines throughout the millennia, lasting maybe how long each?

It's not enough to dramtically shift the balance unless most of the people are wiped out too. Any volcano big enough to render crops and land untennable for sufficient length of time as to cause them to flee is likely to be so big as to just outright kill them. And the only ones really big enough to do that are VEI-7 and above, preferably VEI-8. Thera was a VEI-6, and Tambora was a VEI-6/7. Both of them dwarf most other volcanic eruptions. To get effects postulated here, realistically, you pretty much have to go with an event that is beyond human experience or understanding. If you're going to be cataclysmic, be cataclysmic.

 

[North King]

I must say I disagree. Agriculture is a very long and involved route, and it would only take one (very) bad (series of) harvest(s) (with widespread effects) to undo centuries, even millenia of work.

I'm not saying that they'll fall over and die with the slightest push. I'm saying that agriculture is such a very long evolution that if people are set back from using it even one step, then it will take a long time to regain that step.

 

[Symphony D.]

By all accounts then, the Nile valley should've been left behind several hundreds of times throughout history. Agriculture is an inherently work intensive method of living as you suggest. It requires heavy investment. It is precisely because of that that people are generally unlikely to abandon an area because of a single failure; to do otherwise is to just throw away large quantities of effort.

Furthermore, at this point in history, the Saharan Desert is still quite capable of supporting life, and hosts roughly the same biosphere as the plains of Kenya today. It is lush and full of water and animals. The only reason it is not one of the major ancient sources of civilization today is due to climate shift in the early BC millennia to a much harsher and arid environment (in fact, to this day there exist oases in it that still carry Nile Crocodiles, though they are rapidly dwindling). If the crops fail for a single year, or at the very most, a decade, these people have extensive fallback resources and would not just give up because, especially when they start noticing plants growing back even better following the event. Delaying the rise of the area significantly requires rendering it uninhabitable and wasteland, not just making it kind of sooty. People must genuinely believe the world is ending and be given ample evidence to the affirmative.

 

[North King]

By all accounts then, the Nile valley should've been left behind several hundreds of times throughout history. Agriculture is an inherently work intensive method of living as you suggest. It requires heavy investment. It is precisely because of that that people are generally unlikely to abandon an area because of a single failure; to do otherwise is to just throw away large quantities of effort.

Are you even listening to me?

1) Agriculture was most certainly not first practiced in the Nile Valley.

2) Initially, agriculture was supplemental to the larger practices of hunter-gathering.

3) Agriculture was not a dedicated investment into the future, initially. The first "farming" villages were places where people had defecated the seeds (or their animals had), and noticed that the plants grew where they had left the seeds, thereby getting the idea that it was a thing to do.

It was not, and let me repeat this for emphasis, it was not a conscious progression. The people were, as I said, initially just tending minor little gardens, whose real purpose was to provide easy to gather food. By gathering the seeds that they liked the best for whatever reason, they started selecting them, and slowly, they became domesticated.

But if the gardens completely fail, then those domesticated crops are out the window. There's a whole, what, century? millenium? of work down the toilet.

First of all, this means that they'll not have those particular varieties at hand. Which means that they'll have to restart that whole process. Will there still be the crop around? Yes, the wild stuff. Which they will have to selectively breed back to the place they started before they went on.

Secondly, in the intervening years, they'll have "fallen back" as you say, on the other food sources. Which is rather untrue--they'll actually simply be going back to their primary food sources, abandoning a single supplement to their diet, and doing other things, such as gathering the nuts and berries that they had.

Thirdly, you're forgetting the factor of culture and religion in the whole matter. If they've been starting to tend these little gardens, and suddenly the gods send a big cloud into the sky and their little gardens aren't growing so well, that's usually taken as a sign. It will certainly slow down, if not entirely stop some tribes.

Fourthly, if the thing is big enough to kill off the crop for about a decade, as I have suggested, it's going to be killing off a lot of little bunnies and goats and such--depriving them even of their primary food source. This would certainly incite a population migration, especially if there were better lands around. This would indeed be mostly to the East, for India, while it comes in seasons, is lush enough for the wet monsoon to more than make up for the dry monsoon, and the fact that all of those lands are less effected (still effected, yes, but they are not in the immediate vicinity of the volcano...).

Furthermore, at this point in history, the Saharan Desert is still quite capable of supporting life, and hosts roughly the same biosphere as the plains of Kenya today. It is lush and full of water and animals. The only reason it is not one of the major ancient sources of civilization today is due to climate shift in the early BC millennia to a much harsher and arid environment (in fact, to this day there exist oases in it that still carry Nile Crocodiles, though they are rapidly dwindling). If the crops fail for a single year, or at the very most, a decade, these people have extensive fallback resources and would not just give up because, especially when they start noticing plants growing back even better following the event. Delaying the rise of the area significantly requires rendering it uninhabitable and wasteland, not just making it kind of sooty. People must genuinely believe the world is ending and be given ample evidence to the affirmative.

As I noted above, the destruction of the crop for a few years, even a decade, is enough to discourage the agricultural pursuit enough to considerably delay it. It doesn't matter if the people are gone, or not.

And I assumed we were talking a fairly large event.

Now, you'd be right, if it was a little puff of magma and ash off the side of the
Earth, then a few farmers would die, and there wouldn't be much of anything.

But if it was a fairly big boom, or, let's just go for the dramatic effect, a fairly consistent increase in seismatic activity in the area, enough to blacken skies over a considerable band of laditude, but more immediately affecting Europe and blasting the hell out of the people there, then I think it would be enough to start a fairly major migration.

Yes, there is the thing where the ash will go high into the atmosphere and ****** growth on all those laditudes. However, this conveiniently puts the Ganges more or less on the edge of the cloud, so the Deccan and lower is a fairly safe refuge. America will develop unhindered, as their civilizations are at fairly different latitudes. The Southern Chinese and Southeast Asian areas are not going to catch the full blast of the eruption, either.

So, in short, this will set the Med and the Fertile Crescent back a little while, encourage migration into India and the Southeastern quadrant of Asia, thereby achieving most of the effects we wanted anyway.

In terms of dasian mechanics, the Mesopotamian region would still be a "green" one, and this would extend a little further, but it would also have Indian civilizations developing much quicker, as it would with the Southeastern quadrant of Asia.

Now can you please agree so I can stop having to reply with page-long posts?

 

[North King]

Anyway, Thlayli, you might want to change it to Thera being the big one. And make it a big event.

Anywhere, here's the CZ zones as I would see them as likely (yes, I do mean for the Americas to have red. Their civilizations developed at a similar point as the Europeans, the main problem for them was the lack of draft animals to give them diseases and little metalworking (probably due to a number of factors which I won't go into listing), but they had developed civilizations at least around 3000 BCE, if not far earlier):

 

[North King]

In any case, I'd actually recommend you do a different idea, Thlayli. Not to insult anyone here, but very few posters actually make realistic Eastern Civilizations.

 

[Symphony D.]

Well, going by our AIM discussion, if the peoples of the region are too stupid to figure out farming works better post event, two possibilities present themselves: their neighbors do, and conquer them, or they don't, and they all remain hunter-gatherers until the climate changes and they can't do that anymore. The latter lasts them until about 2500 BC, which severely screws with Mediterranean culture.

What happens is highly dependent on the time of the event - if it's 10,000 BC, ±2,000 years, it'll maybe screw with local development of farming. If it's later, like 6,000 BC, not so much as farming is pretty established in the region by then. It also depends on the scale of the event. Even if it was VEI-8 I don't see it disrupting the Fertile Crescent around Sumer - too far away from either Etna or Campi Flegrei for ash to be a significant factor as debris, and the latitude alleviates most temperature effects aside from maybe said effects altering wind currents and thus rainfall patterns. As such, that region should remain a red zone, in my opinion, though it would be transited heavily by migrations if any (mostly from Canaan - Egyptians would probably retreat to the Sahara). At worst, assuming an early event (10,000 or so BC), it might delay advances in farming there by 1,000 - 2,000 years. If later, not so much at all.

If the event is big enough it might severely damage the Egyptian area so I would be willing to assume it to be green, if the event is early. If it is late the Egyptians would probably be capable of adapting.

In short, to get the effects you desire, you would likely want a bigger event, earlier. Ideally to get what you want, you'd want a Flood Basalt event, though those tend to be very bad. Like, 1/10 to over 1/2 of the European continent covered in lava bad. And with generally devastating effects on the ecosphere globally. So, unless you want to change what Europe looks like, stick with Supervolcano and a 12,000 - 10,000 BC event.

 

[das]

Are there absolutely no easier ways to redirect Aryans? Besides, a Europe dominated by pre-Etruscans, Picts, Carthaginians and Finno-Ugric tribes sounds like fun too. Why cripple it with some silly climatic changes? Just have the Aryans go the other way for some reason. Minor disasters, or just plain old polar bear intervention.

 

[North King]

Are there absolutely no easier ways to redirect Aryans? Besides, a Europe dominated by pre-Etruscans, Picts, Carthaginians and Finno-Ugric tribes sounds like fun too. Why cripple it with some silly climatic changes? Just have the Aryans go the other way for some reason. Minor disasters, or just plain old polar bear intervention.

Carthaginians were Punic, were they not? And I'm fairly certain that the Picts were Celts, only later mistaken by historians as a different tribe.

So you'd have Basques, possibly Tartessians, Etruscans, Berbers, and those sorts of fun peoples. Maybe with some Orcadians in the British isles... Mmm...

 

[Symphony D.]

Are there absolutely no easier ways to redirect Aryans? Besides, a Europe dominated by pre-Etruscans, Picts, Carthaginians and Finno-Ugric tribes sounds like fun too. Why cripple it with some silly climatic changes? Just have the Aryans go the other way for some reason. Minor disasters, or just plain old polar bear intervention.

Asteroid strikes along the Ural Sea, Persia, and the Hindu Kush! Definitely asteroid strikes. Not sunk alien spaceships.

 

[das]

Carthaginians were Punic, were they not? And I'm fairly certain that the Picts were Celts, only later mistaken by historians as a different tribe.

So you'd have Basques, possibly Tartessians, Etruscans, Berbers, and those sorts of fun peoples. Maybe with some Orcadians in the British isles... Mmm...

Not sure why did I include the Carthaginians... but they can try and infiltrate southern Europe or something.

As for the Picts, sources are confusing, but according to some of them the Picts were a completely different, pre-Indo-European people. Rather similar to Basques they were, actually.

Basques and Tartessians - and indeed all sorts of Iberians - are a given. Etruscans are Indo-European; so we have those other Italics there instead. Like the Umbrians.

This is beginning to sound like an ancient version of Rice and Salt. Only, instead of Muslims, we have various natives and those Finno-Ugrics moving in. Oh, and the Indo-Europeans don't die from a plague, and instead all follow the Tocharians on a quest to conquer the riverlands of the East! Tokharischereich uber alles (okay, it would seem that they were more similar to the Scotts than to the Germans, but who cares)!

 

[North King]

As for the Picts, sources are confusing, but according to some of them the Picts were a completely different, pre-Indo-European people. Rather similar to Basques they were, actually.

Yeah, but some sources say they were Celts.

Basques and Tartessians - and indeed all sorts of Iberians - are a given. Etruscans are Indo-European; so we have those other Italics there instead. Like the Umbrians.

Aren't the Umbrians Indo European for that matter, too?

This is beginning to sound like an ancient version of Rice and Salt. Only, instead of Muslims, we have various natives and those Finno-Ugrics moving in. Oh, and the Indo-Europeans don't die from a plague, and instead all follow the Tocharians on a quest to conquer the riverlands of the East! Tokharischereich uber alles (okay, it would seem that they were more similar to the Scotts than to the Germans, but who cares)!

What's wrong with Rice and Salt? I rather liked that NES.

 

[das]

Yeah, but some sources say they were Celts.

The later Picts inevitably intermixed. They still didn't look like the other Celts though, according to most accounts. They looked like Basques.

Aren't the Umbrians Indo European for that matter, too?

Damn, that pretty much disqualifies them. Then whom do we have who isn't Indo-European in Italy?

What's wrong with Rice and Salt? I rather liked that NES.

So did I until the mod killed it. Don't you agree that he really, really shouldn't have done it and deserves some very terrible punishment for killing that NES we've both really enjoyed?

 

[North King]

The later Picts inevitably intermixed. They still didn't look like the other Celts though, according to most accounts. They looked like Basques.

Hmm... Didn't see that in my (admittedly limited) sources. So we'll go with that.

Would the Orcadians still be a factor? They were in the second millenium BCE if I remember correctly... But they'd be much diminished.

Damn, that pretty much disqualifies them. Then whom do we have who isn't Indo-European in Italy?

Umm... The Sicilots in Sicily aren't Indo-European, if memory serves. The native Sardinians (name escapes me ATM), too, and the Maltese. But that's beating around the bush... I can't actually recall any in Italy.

Crap.

So did I until the mod killed it. Don't you agree that he really, really shouldn't have done it and deserves some very terrible punishment for killing that NES we've both really enjoyed?

Yeah. I'll shoot him for you.

:suicide:

 

[Drake Rlugia]

Well, I did some writing and here would be the so called first part of a Catholic England Alt-hist. All comments and critiques welcomed.

I. Entrance.​

The year 1516 began as no other. People were born, obviously, and people died. The only difference from our world is that one person was born a different gender. Specifically, the child born to Henry VIII on this year. As always, the Tudor court was quite excited for the birth of a child. The king and queen had been married for seven years, and generally it seemed to be a strained marriage. Catherine of Aragon did indeed become pregnant on many occassions, but said pregnancies were not usually happy for Henry unless the child was both a boy, and one who lived longer than a few months. Yet there really wasn't much else Henry could do. He generally cared for his beloved Spanish wife, even if she did seem cursed to bare him no children. But thankfully, after hours of labor, Catherine of Aragon did give birth. It was also exactly what Henry wanted. A boy [1]. The boy was christened Henry, after his father, but also his two brothers who had not lived longer than a month. The court was quite happy from this development, most specifically the king. He was much more carefree and light-hearted. Atleast, as carefree and light-hearted a king in the 16th century could be. It was indeed a happy time for Henry. His dynasty was secured (for now) and he could look forward to carving this new born child in his image.

Following the birth of Henry, things elsewhere were generally the same. In 1517, a (crazy) monk by the name of Martin Luther posted 95 Theses on the Castle Church door in Wittenberg, thus sparking what would be known as the Reformation. So, our focus thus returns to England. The early years of the young prince Henry were normal. His mother doted on him, and his father was quite proud of him as well. The dynasty was secured. Young Henry, the Duke of Cornwall was the blessing of the Tudors. The boy was certainly not left in the dark. He was constantly reminded that he too would one day rule England, and that he was the saving grace of the Tudor dynasty. As the young prince grew, obviously he was schooled. His early years were filled by the governesses whose names are now lost to history, as well as his mother. Catherine of Aragon was certainly not the brightest tool in the shed, by her fervent religious beliefs were thrust, however unwillingly unto young Henry, who would later grow into a pious and serious man, much unlike his father. However, we cannot dote on the prince forever. So we will move on to discuss the policies of England, and indeed Europe in a greater perspective.

Britain was greatly torn through Henry's reign. In 1517, a new, heretical belief popped up in Germany. From the start it really didn't have much effect on Britain, but within a few years, Martin Luther certainly had many followers in Britain, ranging from Artisans, to nobility in the northern part of the country. This did not sit well with Henry, nor did it with Cardinal Wosley, the director of British policy. Thus, it was not hard to see that various of these British reformers, atleast the non-nobles were burnt at the stake. Henry VIII also went as far as to write the Defence of the Seven Sacraments, dedicated to Leo X. This earned the British King the title Defensor Fidei. Britain could be see as torn with religious violence, but that was no different compared to Europe. The Reformation was slowly gaining converts on the continent as well, especially within Germany. Peasant revolts flarred up within the Holy Roman Empire, led by those who beliefs Martin Luther did not just attack the religious structure of Europe, but the social one as well. Eventually, these revolts would be put down, but obviously the marks had been made. The so called "Reformation" of Martin Luther had broken the strangle hold of the Papacy over the populace of Europe, even if his teachings had very few, and of course scattered followers. When it came to British diplomacy, Britain could find herself at times isolated, and at the forefront of European diplomacy. With a birth of a male heir, and of course a happy marriage, it was very obvious that Henry VIII sought a pro-Spanish foreign policy, especially following the Treaty of London in 1518, and the election of Charles V to the position Holy Roman Emperor, which greatly distanced France from Spain. It was now decided. With a seething France, it was the perfect time for England to arrange an alliance with Spain. The Treaty of Liege, ratified in 1521, signaled Henry's greatest desire.

Following the ratification of an alliance with Spain, things were quiet. Atleast, as quiet as they could be. Reformists continued to be burnt at the stake, and there was a sense of divide growing in England. While most of the nation remained Catholic, few could ignore that there was a growing minority of those influenced by Reformist teachings. This is the scene Henry, the young Duke of Cornwall grew up in, a homeland torn by religious violence. Young Henry was of course hardly sympathetic to the Reformation. He viewed it with hostility, as shown when he was appointed governor of Wessex in 1538, as to gain some political experience. The prince hardly wasted his time gathering up suspected Reformists and putting them to the stake. The Governorship of Prince Henry lasted only a few years. It is rumored he was removed by his father due to petitions of redress from the peasants, although no one will be sure. Prince Henry remained at court, although he kept to himself until 1547, when the fat, gouty Henry VIII died. Following the funeral and needed rituals, Prince Henry was crowned Henry IX only a few weeks later. Henry IX was quite ready to begin his reign, but he was unknowing the sort of problems and religious divides he would face..

[1] Yes, it's the OTL Mary. There is a 50% chance when a baby is concieved that it could be a male, or a female. I decided to go this route as she (or he in this case) was the only child of Catherine of Aragon that lived to reach adulthood.