Alternate History Thread IV: The Sequel

[Flavius Aetius]

I express in the Italian thing, if possible.

 

[North King]

Actually I may not take China. I noticed that she has a severe lack of special cities both compared to India and for the time period; I don't wish to play China as I will inevitably add quite a few special cities. So kudos for whoever does.

I should point out that the specialty cities definately need to be rebalanced in India and China. Mainly, less in India. I should also point out that China, given its rural nature in this time period, will have fewer special cities (at least to start out with) than some other areas (say, Europe) but will have an equatable, if not outright stronger, economy.

Nah, India doesn't need less. China needs a few more. Honestly, Europe is overloaded with special cities in nearly every NES.

 

[Disenfrancised]

Nah, India doesn't need less. China needs a few more. Honestly, Europe is overloaded with special cities in nearly every NES.

Well past 1800 its apt . But yeah at least 30% and 25% of the special cities for this period should be in India and China respectively, rather than the current 15% and 11%.

 

[Symphony D.]

Bizarro PoD: Alexander Haig launches a coup d'etat after Reagan is shot.

 

[North King]

Well past 1800 its apt .

Well, yes, but they're still horribly underrepresented. From the sources I've got, India's GDP was roughly equal to the UK's through 1900. In most of the maps we get from that time period around here, England has up to 6 ECs, and India as low as 3.

 

[jeps]

Bizarro PoD: Alexander Haig launches a coup d'etat after Reagan is shot.

would he STILL be 'in control there' or would he have relinquished after a while?

 

[Symphony D.]

would he STILL be 'in control there' or would he have relinquished after a while?

I don't rightly know, to be honest. I imagine he would "leave" at some point, possibly by the same method as Reagan.

 

[Thlayli]

Interesting. If Bush could be gotten out of the way, Haig would probably have Tip O'Neill bumped off to clear the way for a radical alliance with Strom Thurmond, who was the President pro tem, and they could run a de facto diarchy until the whole thing blows up.

The Pentagon would spontaneously combust.

 

[Israelite9191]

There is still the population loss, and since the europeans know that the Incans are sitting on huge piles of silver they will keep on coming over the years till they win - see asia.

I find it much more likely that the Europeans in this world will focus on Mexico and Central America (all the gold and few of the difficulties) and the trade routes to East Asia. At this time Europe really didn't care about the Americas, it was just a hunk in the way.

Further on the colonial front I find the celtic lovefest of agreeing to share costs for that Atlantic crossing rather dubious for the time period and state of financial development,

Since gaining independence from the English and French the Celtic Reformed countries have basically acted as a confederation led by Scotland. At this time even Scotland was not in a position to see funding an entire trans-Atlantic venture, without proof that there will be success, as profitable. However, with support from the FitzGeralds, Wales, and Brittany, the initial voyage would certainly seem much more profitable.

also the landing as far south as maryland,

I admit that I am not an expert on the Atlantic trade winds, but from what I could tell based on maps of them a landing in Maryland could well be expected.

and such interest even though the explorer wouldn't have been able to bring back gold ala Colombus to get everyone interested.

Correct, there is no gold. But remember, the formula for the Old Imperialism was "G-d, Gold, and Glory." I probably should have talked about this more in the TL, but the Celtic Reformed countries are in large part motivated here by their faith, including the desire to missionise and to establish new, utopian settlements in an "unblemished world." Think Puritans and Quakers, not Columbus.

Nah, India doesn't need less. China needs a few more. Honestly, Europe is overloaded with special cities in nearly every NES.

Well, yes, but they're still horribly underrepresented. From the sources I've got, India's GDP was roughly equal to the UK's through 1900. In most of the maps we get from that time period around here, England has up to 6 ECs, and India as low as 3.

The way I look at it, the European (and Ottoman) economy at this time is far more based on its cities than others, and thus should have more eco centers. However, their overal economies are, as you mention, far inferior as compared to other areas, and thus should have much smaller bases. I know that in general NESes that have eco centres tend to become all about the eco centres, but I intend to do everythin within my power as a Mod to make sure that eco centres remain complimentary to, not a replacement for, the base economy.

 

[alex994]

The way I look at it, the European (and Ottoman) economy at this time is far more based on its cities than others, and thus should have more eco centers. However, their overal economies are, as you mention, far inferior as compared to other areas, and thus should have much smaller bases. I know that in general NESes that have eco centres tend to become all about the eco centres, but I intend to do everythin within my power as a Mod to make sure that eco centres remain complimentary to, not a replacement for, the base economy.

Excuse me for asking, but what does European and Ottoman economies being more based on her cities than other nations have anything to do with the number of eco centers? While cities in other nations share a smaller proportion of their economy, they are still numerous and wealthy enough to be eco centers

 

[Israelite9191]

I would disagree with that Alex. The development of the modern city took place in Europe before it took place anywhere else, resulting in many more "important" cities per capita in Europe than elsewhere. China and India, up until the 20th century, were heavily rural and agrarian, more so than Europe anyway, and would have had fewer eco centres, even if they had much larger economies overall.

 

[Symphony D.]

I would disagree with that Alex. The development of the modern city took place in Europe before it took place anywhere else, resulting in many more "important" cities per capita in Europe than elsewhere.

That's so amazingly false it's incredible you'd even suggest it unless you're setting "Europe" as "Rome" and ignoring the whole "medieval" thing that followed. Chang'an, 750 AD: 800,000 to 1,000,000 inhabitants. Europe, 750 AD: dirt hovels. London had barely begun to compete with cities like Kyoto by 1600, let alone any earlier. These weren't "village-states" by this juncture where the "city" served a mostly ceremonial role. They were functioning centers of trade with good sanitation and transportation systems housing hundreds of thousands of people. Europe was a piss-poor backwater until the later Renaissance in comparison. To say otherwise is frankly ridiculous.

 

[Israelite9191]

We're in the later Renaissance. I recognise that Europe is at the beggining of its rapid modernisation, but it is still here. I also recognise that the great cities of Asia are far larger than the great cities of Europe, but the number of significant cities in Europe would, I would think, be larger per capita than in Asia. Now, Symph, I recognise that you disagree with me and in general don't approve of me, but please, let's keep it civil.

 

[alex994]

I would disagree with that Alex. The development of the modern city took place in Europe before it took place anywhere else, resulting in many more "important" cities per capita in Europe than elsewhere. China and India, up until the 20th century, were heavily rural and agrarian, more so than Europe anyway, and would have had fewer eco centres, even if they had much larger economies overall.

I'm not really sure what we're disagreeing about, never argued about the "modern" city or anything though now that you mention it, the "modern" city of Europe of this period was nothing compared to the cities of China or India. I may be a bit delusional at this point, but while China and India were certainly much more heavily rural and agrarian than Europe, there was still a sizable urban population in the two areas with numerous cities scattered about serving in economic, cultural or political functions. I mean, are there different standards for what exactly constitutes an "eco center"? I mean, generally there are a lot of rather insignificant cities becoming ECs in Europe while the same can't be said of China.

Did I mention China has a lot less city dots on the map than Europe does? And that what constitutes a city in Europe would not necessarily constitute a city in China or India with their larger populations?

EDIT: What makes one city "significant" compared to other cities?

 

[Symphony D.]

We're in the later Renaissance. I recognise that Europe is at the beggining of its rapid modernisation, but it is still here. I also recognise that the great cities of Asia are far larger than the great cities of Europe, but the number of significant cities in Europe would, I would think, be larger per capita than in Asia.

Ming China alone had somewhere between 150 and 200 million people alone by the time it fell, while Europe had between 1/2 to 3/5 that. Why would a group of societies with a roughly equivalent distribution of wealth between rich and poor (if not worse, due to a more recently developed merchantry), a vastly younger history of developed city infrastructure, and a population vastly smaller yield a greater number of economic centers? Europe is equally as agrarian as its contemporaries at this point in time. The idea of heavily urbanized populations constituting anywhere near the bulk of the populace is a thoroughly 20th Century one. Europe did not lead the field in this aspect until much later.

More people under unified government produces a greater supply of goods and can facilitate a great demand as well. A bunch of fractured and relatively backward states still just barely throwing off feudalism is no match for that. In India, the difference is made up for by vastly larger trading networks and vastly more profitable goods.

 

[Israelite9191]

I would agree with everything you say there Symph. China will have to have a much larger economy than that of Europe. That is not to say, however, that they will have more eco centres, just a larger base and larger combined (base plus eco centres) economy.

As for India, I am reconcidering whether or not to remove eco centres. I am also cutting out about four of Europe's. China, however, still seems a little off to me.

 

[Symphony D.]

I would agree with everything you say there Symph. China will have to have a much larger economy than that of Europe. That is not to say, however, that they will have more eco centres, just a larger base and larger combined (base plus eco centres) economy.

That's nice, but it continues to not make sense. If all things are considered equal, which isn't sensible when comparing the relative development of China and Europe but we'll presume it, then by having double the population, and something like half the area of the entire European continent, the density of cities will be something like four times as high.

This is an arithmetic estimate, but with that many population centers, and a vastly more developed and unified transit system (most notably via the Yellow, Pearl, and Yangtze rivers, and Grand Canal) it is safe to presume at least an equal number of large trading centers.

I am curious as to hear exactly why, given the circumstances, this is not so, other than play balancing.

 

[Israelite9191]

China has more people, and larger cities, but the important cities are fewer in number and the population more spread out. However, in order to take into account the fact that China's great cities are so much more, well, great, I am considering making certain ones of them worth more than their European equivalents. Thoughts?

 

[alex994]

What makes one city important and another city not important?

 

[Symphony D.]

China has more people, and larger cities, but the important cities are fewer in number and the population more spread out.

Under what set of physical parameters does a greater quantity placed into a smaller area lead to less density? I also redirect back to alex's request for a definition of "important."

To an absolute standard, a small Chinese city would outshine even the grandest European equivalent. If this is being judged subjectively in context, what criteria are being used?