HueyLong
Banned
This is kind of funny, as Romans (well, the Latins in general) were originally known as cattle rustlers from across the Tiber, and even the general word for money (pecunia) comes from the word for cattle.
Africa-dominant world discussion
- Thread starter Aussey
- Start date
This is kind of funny, as Romans (well, the Latins in general) were originally known as cattle rustlers from across the Tiber, and even the general word for money (pecunia) comes from the word for cattle.
Alcuin
Banned
I didn't know that. I thought the Latin for cow was something like vaca. Although I did know that in English "cattle" originally meant ALL property, not just cows (like "chattel")
Max Sinister
Banned
Huns and/or Mongols (or any other steppe people) destroy the civilizations of Europe, Asia and the Middle East incl. North Africa, and for some reason, civilization never makes a return. Britain and Japan are also underyoked. A few Romans or Byzantines flee to Axum, bring all kinds of useful knowledge with them, and given enough time, mix with the Axumites. Axum spreads its civilization among other African people, and they later go on to conquer Southern Europe and North Africa from the steppe people.
Not going to happen. Completly opposite Alexander's personality type. Sure, I can see him marching to Axum, under incredibly stretched circumstances. But that would cost him much of his army, and, considering this would probably happen after Egypt, would leave Persia on his lines of retreat. But even if he reaches Axum, his men will mutiny, and force him to return home, just as they did in India, possibly before he finishes the conquest. But let's assume he somehow gets there, and conquers Axum. he builds a fleet, and sails up the red sea, conquering everything in his path, probably butterflying away Islam. Why? Because he was moved by dreams of Greatness. Every one of his conquests was heading off towards a new, exotic, rich land. Not into untamed wilderness. Meanwhile, if his soldiers mutinied in India, they will mutiny if ordered to march into an endless continent. FInally, if Alexander is off in the heart of Africa, who exactly is keeping the empire in line?
Say this does happen, however, say after conquering Persian and India, they take the Ocean route, get blown of course, and land in Ethiopia- from there might they unite and march into the Congo, maybe eventually finding the great Zimbabwe?
MrP
Banned
pecus-oris, nt. cattle, herd is probably the word related to pecunia . . . yes, and it's from Greek pekos/pokos meaning fleece or wool.
EDIT: Bollocks! I forgot he got banned. Er, consider the above a general FYI for all interested in Greek and Latin. Um.
Last edited:
Perhaps a reformer that did not survive OTL tunes Axum up a bit. Futher down the line, one of this more centralized nations periods of control over Egypt is stronger, settlers flooding in.
After a century or two of Egypt functioning as the breadbasket of this joined empire (Upper. lower and middle Egypt to the Egyptians) has the population base to expand west over a series of wars.
Some victories, some defeats, but in the end, they hold a territory past OTL Carthage. This would make a solid base for warfare across the med.
Of course I can see them fragmenting before this, but let them have a civil war period, then rejoin under a conqueror.
After a century or two of Egypt functioning as the breadbasket of this joined empire (Upper. lower and middle Egypt to the Egyptians) has the population base to expand west over a series of wars.
Some victories, some defeats, but in the end, they hold a territory past OTL Carthage. This would make a solid base for warfare across the med.
Of course I can see them fragmenting before this, but let them have a civil war period, then rejoin under a conqueror.
I agree that Alexander would go East not South - Persia was the prize and the threat to the Greek/Macedonian world, and so was the focus of his efforts - there just wasn't enough to draw him that far up the Nile.
Though I question a few of your points: why do you butterfly away Isalm but not Christianity? Why would Alex's army see Africa as "an endless continent" if they didn't see Asia that way? If anything, Africa would be easier as there are fewer settled populations to fight against (more nomadic, less urbanized = smaller warrior class) and if they can fight through the jungles of India, the jungles of Africa would be no harder.
I think if he'd lived, he might have got around to it - once he realized that marching to the Pacific didn't bring him back to the Nile, he would have eventually had to go back home the long way, over his previous footsteps. But even then, Carthage to the West would have been a more tempting target than heading South.
*rolls eyes*
In Egypt's case, at least, I can't believe people still believe things like this in the 21st Century.
Rockingham
Banned
Two words: Suez Canal.
1)Not very well, you mean, in most cases?
2)Yes, but Alexander was likely going to adopt a Persian style to his empire if he had survived. I would also argue that, considering the Arab, Mongolian, and Ottoman(regardless of whether you consider them European) incusions into Europe, plus Europes dependance on Indian and China's trade, Europe can onl be said to have got hte upper hand somewhere between 1690 and 1800(in which the Ottoman defeats, British supremacy in India and European surpassment of China in terms of Trade occurred.