I need your help with these maps

[Kyriakos]

Hey, virtually all my posts were about the Danube serving as a sort of natural border

Edit: reposting Winner's last post cause it had new map info and was in the last page:

(I wish certain people in this thread at least looked at the maps carefully before posting. You'll know whom I have in mind.) And a supercomputer to model billions of years of geologic history Complete realism is by definition unachievable, you can only approach it. What I meant is by no means that I am at all very good at it. I just try to avoid the most common idiocies I see in random fantasy maps ("I need a desert next to a swamp so that my hero can do X - why the hell not!" ) Sigh. The point of this thread is to deduce the method he used; obviously he wouldn't have bothered if they draw the circles at random. Already explained: Everything I believe the White guy is as American as it gets. No? I'd say they're pretty similar to the mountains of Wales. You don't need Himalayas to create a region of fractured petty kingdoms (you don't need mountains at all, I might add - a large, thinly populated country with a lot of bogs and marshes and unfertile plains will also tend to produce a similar thing). In the end, each valley ends up having its own petty king, who occasionally conquers the neighbouring valleys to pronounce himself the high king, only to die and have it all split between his sons. Rinse and repeat. What? Coastal marshlands are shown on both maps. In the American one (the one White clearly put more effort into) shows the coastal marshlands in the American south as a major factor. He's got a map showing population density somewhere, which is pretty consistent with it.

The "especially" part is important. What White does in his project is to make a slightly tongue-in-cheek representation of America after the industrial civilization fell. The parallels with the fall of Rome abound. Now, eastern US is now pretty deforested, pretty much like Roman-controlled Europe was (not to such extent though due to the much lower Roman tech-level). Following the collapse of modern civilization and the loss of 4/5ths of the US population to famine, disease and war, some reforestation would have occurred, especially in those area which are too difficult and/or dangerous to till. The European map probably refers specifically to high/late Middle Ages, since that's roughly the tech level of White's medieval America. --- Overall, I am dismayed by the level of hostility some people show to something so harmless - nobody is making this a new textbook rule or pretends to have a "skeleton key to history". It's just an interesting way of looking at things and I am interested in it only because it might be useful outside the field of history. There's no need to unleash the full academic hair-splitting fury against it. Practically anything can be ground into dust in this way and it is not helpful. --- @Kyriakos, Domen I appreciates inputs ON TOPIC. If you want to discuss Byzantine Empire and/or Poland, please do it somewhere ELSE. Thank you.

 

[Winner]

Hey, virtually all my posts were about the Danube serving as a sort of natural border

I am pre-empting because I see where that's headed Danube and Balkans are not included in the map, so it's outside the scope of this discussion.

On rivers serving as natural borders, I imagine that depends on a combination of several factors:

a) location - inside the "core" of a nation (i.e. close to the middle of the circles) or between two cores, that is in a region that's likely to be disputed?
b) navigability - can the river serve as a major waterway, connecting places which are otherwise hard to travel between?
c) fordability - is it rather easy or rather difficult to cross for warbands/armies?
d) fertility - does it provide resources (fish, clams, water birds, etc.) that incentivise people to settle near it?
e) surroundings - is it a marshland difficult to farm, or prime fertile land? Is the river needed for irrigation?
f) tech-level - depending on how advanced a civilization is, it can or cannot easily influence the factors above

Plus other things I may have missed. I'd say rivers can serve as both depending on how these factors play out.

 

[Domen]

I think these two maps are not taking into account the natural tendency of people to settle in the coastal areas.

There might be poor conditions for agriculture in the coastal marshlands, but that's not really such a problem since fishing is a good replacement for farming.

In our times, majority of world's entire population lives in close proximity to the coastlines.

In the past many civilizations were also built around coastal regions or major navigable rivers with access to the nearby sea / ocean.

Most states also want to have access to the sea / ocean and fight for it. Landlocked countries are in minority and they are mostly small countries:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Landlocked_country

In modern Europe, all landlocked countries are small ones. Only Belarus is relatively big, but has a small population (10 million people).

 

[Kyriakos]

^In the past even moreso, given that sailing to somewhere almost always took less time than going there by land, or at least to any other place inland which was equally distant to the coastal point.
I recall Gogol (the early 19th century Russian author) commenting that (in his time) it would take a horseman nearly 2 years to go from the one end of the Russian empire to the other one. It would take the Russian fleet considerably less to go by sea, despite having to circumnavigate a hellish lot of a land to reach that end...

 

[Domen]

So in North America probably the best place for a civilization was somewhere at the Great Lakes.

Climate there was / still is moderate, conditions for agriculture were very good, the Great Lakes are connected with the ocean.

Then probably along the Mississippi River would be the natural expansion direction for that northern civilization.

In the past even moreso, given that sailing to somewhere almost always took less time than going there by land

Exactly. And for example in Kievan Rus they had a well-developed network of river trade, because it was a civilization built among major rivers.

I suppose that in this alternative North America rivers would also play a major role in the expansion of various Medieval kingdoms.

On rivers serving as natural borders, I imagine that depends on a combination of several factors:

Hmmm, that's a good question. Rivers sometimes serve as natural borders, and sometimes as exact opposites - natural connections!

When two countries expand from opposite directions towards each other, then they often establish their borders along rivers.

But when a country is alone in a particular region, and has no competition such as another state, rivers become natural communication / trade routes.

a) location - inside the "core" of a nation (i.e. close to the middle of the circles) or between two cores, that is in a region that's likely to be disputed?

That's it.

e) surroundings - is it a marshland difficult to farm, or prime fertile land? Is the river needed for irrigation?

This is important too. And of course only large, navigable rivers really matter.

 

[Winner]

I think these two maps are not taking into account the natural tendency of people to settle in the coastal areas.

See the map of littoral regions in the 1st post. White believes these breed maritime cultures, which he classifies differently from the "feudal core".

As for America - the coastal marshlands in the American south are unfavourable for other reasons than poor farming. There are probably diseases which generally plague all subtropical wet climates, plus dangerous predators and the risk of being raided and enslaved by the US (which in White's world is a maritime republic which lives by trade and occasional plundering of the coasts). Historically, one of the contributing factors for the boom of slavery in the American south was that whites were dying like flies there if put to hard labour - and that was a technologically more advanced civilization, i.e. 17th/18th century Europeans, not medieval Europeans, attempting to colonize there.

Fishing can feed populations directly at the coast, which is a problem if the marshlands extend far inland.

 

[Winner]

So in North America probably the best place for a civilization was somewhere at the Great Lakes.
Climate there was / still is moderate, conditions for agriculture were very good, the Great Lakes are connected with the ocean.
Then probably along the Mississippi River would be the natural expansion direction for that northern civilization.

That's basically what White concludes as well. The area south and south-east of the Great Lakes are among the most affluent. Mississippi on the other hand serves as a major trade route:

 

[Domen]

I like this map of trade resources. But isn't there too cold for Wine / vineyards in that northern place ???

and the risk of being raided and enslaved by the US

That was also the risk at the Baltic Sea in Medieval Europe. That's why cities were usually not located in immediate coastline of the sea, but a bit farther into the hinterland - preferably at the coasts of little gulfs / bays or as river ports near the mouths of rivers. In general in such places, which provided comfortable enough access to the Sea, but at the same time which were naturally defensive and were not exposed to attacks of pirates or large enemy fleets.

So I suppose it is possible to predict, where coastal cities would emerge. You just need to find such naturally defensive places.

==================================

For example Medieval Szczecin - it was not located at the immediate coast of the Baltic Sea, but at the Oder River, even though close to the Sea:

The harbour of Szczecin (one of the most important Medieval Baltic Sea ports) was located on two river islands, as can be seen above.

Early Gdańsk was also not located immediately at the Baltic Sea, but at the Vistula Delta, at least several hundred meters from the Sea coast:

Two reconstructions of early Gdańsk:

Spoiler :

Here a more realistic one:

Arkona - capital city of the Rugians - was located immediately at the Baltic Sea coastline, but in an extremely defensible place:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cape_Arkona

 

[Traitorfish]

Sigh. The point of this thread is to deduce the method he used; obviously he wouldn't have bothered if they draw the circles at random.

I understand that they were not drawn randomly. My claim is that he drew them arbitrarily. That he organised his presentation of terrain and the placement of his circles to fit where he imagined these circles "should" go, and so superficially validate this proposal.

Everything

Could you elaborate?

Coastal marshlands are shown on both maps. In the American one (the one White clearly put more effort into) shows the coastal marshlands in the American south as a major factor.

Eh, fair enough.

 

[Domen]

Did he take into account some aspects of real history of North America?

For example the Mississippian culture and its territorial distribution?:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mississippian_culture

BTW, when it comes to real history - maybe it is not totally accurate, but:

Spoiler :

 

[timtofly]

I like this map of trade resources. But isn't there too cold for Wine / vineyards in that northern place ???

The place on the map of the great lakes area where there is a wheat and metal work symbols, should also have grapes and move the wheat north. There are a lot of wineries in that area. It is seasonal, but not out of the question.

 

[Terxpahseyton]

But that assumes you start with a center of power, which attempts to build a cohesive territory around itself, and extends out to the greatest extent it is able to, while at the same time other centres of power attempt to do the same. What White is doing the opposite of that, drawing circles and insisting that a centre of power will naturally appear somewhere within it, because: reasons.

I am afraid you didn't get the point at all. And I am not saying this lighthearted.
I spoke of cartoonish portrayals by referencing uppi. Your portrayal of the theory is not just cartoonish in form though as uppi was, it is cartoonish in content as well.
The idea - at least as I understand it - is not of an actual power center grappling power. The idea is absolutely abstract. You can not frame it within actual reality other than to demonstrate its consequences. It itself is not real - it is a tendency of human development. Of social relations. No more, no less.
And this idea is more or less exactly what I already laid out (but you - overlooked? I don't know). A theory of the nature of social cohesiveness. And cohesiveness is nothing else than the compression of social interaction up to a point where it forms similarities and structure making it a cultural or ideally a political entity.

You mention that medieval structures corresponded rather badly to the circles.
I am not surprised. In comparison to modern national structures medieval power structures are much more dominated by opportunistic power structures. In other words - an elite of power holders and their game dominated the social reality of their subjects.
This changed considerably in the course and wake of nationalism. And the product is something getting much closer to our circles.

However - that goes for the formal dimension of power. The circles may still tell us much of value about the informal dimension of relations. That is cultural similarities.

 

[Terxpahseyton]

Regarding forests and marsh and such - well that may IMO constitute the weakness of the Europe map. And may also partially explain why it is more suited for the rather modern area than the early medieval period.

 

[Winner]

Regarding forests and marsh and such - well that may IMO constitute the weakness of the Europe map. And may also partially explain why it is more suited for the rather modern area than the early medieval period.

Yes. Modern meaning ~A.D. 1300, which is roughly the level of technology of White's medieval America. Forests have been thinned out a little, marshlands dried out where convenient, and population has risen and larger feudal states have organized themselves.

In the Europe map marshlands are not ignored, he clearly takes them into account (Netherlands, the Pripyat marshes). What is more interesting is the extent of the steppe. In his world, an event equivalent to Magyars settling down in Pannonia and becoming agricultural and feudal has also occurred (in "Territory of Iowa").