Ancient Egypt survives to this day

[robertp6165]

Looking good. I think you're being a bit rough on the Romans.

LOL Hey, I think they're doing very well, considering all the blows they are getting right now.

And butterflying away only St. Patrick, when ya kept everyone else?

LOL Well, I've butterflied away a lot more than just St. Patrick. LOL How about the entire Carolingian Empire? Visgothic Spain? Vandal Africa? The Byzantine Empire? Most of the Slavic states of Eastern Europe? All the Muslim states and cultural influence in Africa? What more do you want...sheesh. LOL

Nah, its all good. I think the Romans would adopt Norse ship designs by now though, to help even things out. Might a Roman general retake Britannia in about 66 years or so, by any chance?

Well, I am thinking the Romans probably wouldn't adopt Norse designs wholesale, but have at least adapted their own ship designs so they can compete on a somewhat even basis. That is how they were able to do as well in the Romano/Norse War of 910-915 as they did. As for Britannia, I don't know. Is Britannia really worth all that much to them that they WANT to take it back? If they are going to expand, they might want to take back the lands taken from them by the Bulgars and the Magyars instead. But we will see.

 

[MerryPrankster]

I think the TL is coming along VERY nicely. We have a "Constitutional Pharaoh," a Norse empire consisting of Britain, Scandinavia, Iceland, Greenland, and probably bits of Newfoundland, plenty of Caliphal intrigue, and lots of other interesting stuff.

Keep up the good work!

 

[robertp6165]

I think the TL is coming along VERY nicely. We have a "Constitutional Pharaoh," a Norse empire consisting of Britain, Scandinavia, Iceland, Greenland, and probably bits of Newfoundland, plenty of Caliphal intrigue, and lots of other interesting stuff.

Keep up the good work!

Thank you, Matt!

 

[Anthony Appleyard]

All true...on the other hand, the Arabs are able to devote much more attention and resources to subduing the subcontinent in this timeline, as they are not busy subduing north and east Africa. Would it have been enough? Extremely likely? Maybe not. Possible? I think so.

There is a limit to how big an army can be got in the field, in those days before motor transport. Armies had to live off the land. In thinly populated areas a big army starved and a small army was defeated. OTL that kept Montenegro (in Jugoslavia) free right through the Turkish time.

And jungle is not good country for horses. In the Ramayana even the hero Rama had to tell his charioteer to take his chariot back home to Ayodhya when he went into the Dandaka jungle as he went on pilgrimage to where Allahabad is now. In his time much of Uttar Pradesh was continuous jungle.

Also, in this OTL Islam does not have Egypt as a source of men and materials.

 

[robertp6165]

There is a limit to how big an army can be got in the field, in those days before motor transport. Armies had to live off the land. In thinly populated areas a big army starved and a small army was defeated. OTL that kept Montenegro (in Jugoslavia) free right through the Turkish time.

true. Just not sure how much that applies in India, which has always had a relatively large population.

And jungle is not good country for horses. In the Ramayana even the hero Rama had to tell his charioteer to take his chariot back home to Ayodhya when he went into the Dandaka jungle as he went on pilgrimage to where Allahabad is now. In his time much of Uttar Pradesh was continuous jungle.

Most of the Arab armies, contrary to popular belief, were infantry. Infantry would of course been better suited to handle such regions. It wasn't until the Turks arrived that they became primarily cavalry-based.

Also, in this OTL Islam does not have Egypt as a source of men and materials.

True. But then, that's one of the main points of the TL.

 

[Admiral Matt]

I think this TL is sorely lacking in African revolts. I kept my peace until now, but with some of the recent events of the TL, you would really expect something.

My guess as is that South Africa would be the place to have a revolt. Think about it: when the Egyptians arrived, most of OTL South Africa and Namibia was inhabited exclusively by San. The San are basically the native-americans of Africa; sparsely populated, stone-age hunter-gatherers with an extreme vulnerability to disease. Given the fact that South Africa is one of the few comfortable areas in the empire, it is almost definately populated by a large majority of ethnic Egyptians.

A local identity would eventually be established and the South Africans - positioned to co-opt trade which would otherwise have to go through the Suez - will have an enormous economic incentive to revolt. The only question is what would trigger that sort of thing. I suppose it could happen when Rome is intervening in the civil war - I wouldn't be at all surprised if the Romans supported or even set-off such a revolt.

What might make it more fun, though, is this new representative system in Egypt. Obviously, it's only available to the nemhu, but if history is any guide, it won't be extended outside of Egypt proper...even to ethnically Egyptian nemhu. The revolt of the nemhu and the limitation of the pharaohs' powers has set up some very dangerous precedents. Just look: The right of the people to rise up against authority if that authority violates their rights; The right to secure representation to limit the power of authority; The legitimacy of overtaxation as a causus belli for revolution. Just what makes these old-country Egyptians better than us anyway?

Also, since governments never like to take in less money, I suspect the new Pharaoh will be looking to find a new source of wealth to replace that formerly extorted from the nemhu. So if taxes are increased in the rest of the empire... I'm sure you can see where I'm going with this.

It's a little off the main goal to create an Egyptian America in South Africa, but wouldn't it be interesting? I don't really see how it could harm the survival of Egypt, either. It is about time that something bad happened to Egypt that it can't just recover from a generation later.

 

[MerryPrankster]

"It's a little off the main goal to create an Egyptian America in South Africa, but wouldn't it be interesting? I don't really see how it could harm the survival of Egypt, either. It is about time that something bad happened to Egypt that it can't just recover from a generation later."

I concur. Egypt has never suffered anything really bad (other than the inbreeding tax-raising Pharaoh) or lost any territory, while Rome's suffered territorial losses and Persia has basically been run over by the Arabs. Admiral Matt's South African revolution theory is a VERY good way to go and I vote for it.

Plus, are the Egyptians involved in the slave trade? This could butterfly into all sorts of fun stuff, esp. since there's now a good-sized African competitor in the form of Ghana.

 

[Anthony Appleyard]

There is a limit to how big an army can be got in the field, ...

true. Just not sure how much that applies in India, which has always had a relatively large population.

The Indus and Ganges plain was densely populated. But much of the mountainous south still had big areas of continuous jungle. OTL many centers of Hindu learning kept away from Muslim attacks and pogroms for long periods among the mountains and jungles of the Ghats and Deccan.

Egypt holding onto an empire in Africa for a long time, would have to manage without horses and camels in much of the area due to the nagana pest trypanosome disease which the tsetse fly carries.

 

[robertp6165]

I think this TL is sorely lacking in African revolts. I kept my peace until now, but with some of the recent events of the TL, you would really expect something.

Well, there has been one African revolt in the timeline, but I can see your point.

My guess as is that South Africa would be the place to have a revolt. Think about it: when the Egyptians arrived, most of OTL South Africa and Namibia was inhabited exclusively by San. The San are basically the native-americans of Africa; sparsely populated, stone-age hunter-gatherers with an extreme vulnerability to disease. Given the fact that South Africa is one of the few comfortable areas in the empire, it is almost definately populated by a large majority of ethnic Egyptians.

Well, from 600 BC to about 320 AD, the only Egyptian presence south of the Horn of Africa was in a thin strip along the eastern coast (with an enclave reaching into Zimbabwe, where the mines of Ophir are located). The interior was not under Egyptian control. During this period, Egyptian settlers and cultural influence gradually filtered into the interior, as had happened with Nubia during the classic Egyptian period. So the San in South Africa (and other peoples of the interior of east Africa between the Horn of Africa and South Africa) had over 900 years to be "Egyptianized." I am assuming that they would have become similar to the Kushites/Nubians of the OTL...no longer tribes of stone-age hunter gatherers, but a collection of petty kingdoms based on Egyptian culture...by the time the Egyptians decided to move in and take over a large portion of the interior between 280 and 320 AD. And the long period of contact would have allowed the native population to rebuild after whatever epidemics caused by the initial contact had run their course. So in 1,000 AD, you have a mixed population in southern Africa (and the other Egyptian holdings in east Africa) which is minority native Egyptian and majority Egyptianized native.

A local identity would eventually be established and the South Africans - positioned to co-opt trade which would otherwise have to go through the Suez - will have an enormous economic incentive to revolt.

How are they in a position to coopt trade going through the Suez? What reason does anybody have to choose a route via the Cape of Good Hope over the Suez route? Ghana doesnt trade by sea, it trades across the Sahara by camel caravan. The Romans would not want to sail around the Cape of Good Hope when they can go through the Suez Canal...its much longer than the Suez route. The Egyptians charge tolls on ships passing through the canal, true, but they are not large tolls...Egypt doesn't want to stifle trade, just profit by it. And to the world outside of Egypt, sub-saharan Africa is still pretty much a mystery at this date...so the rest of the world really doesn't know that the possibility of another trade route exists. So I just don't see it.

As far as a local identity developing, this could very well happen. But it should be remembered that South Africa is very close to the mines of Ophir in Zimbabwe. The Pharaohs are not going to allow ANYTHING to threaten their control over these mines, which in large part are the basis of their power. So they will take whatever measures are necessary to ensure that the region remains under Egyptian control. That's not to say a revolt couldn't happen, but it is unlikely to succeed if it does happen.

The only question is what would trigger that sort of thing. I suppose it could happen when Rome is intervening in the civil war - I wouldn't be at all surprised if the Romans supported or even set-off such a revolt.

It would be difficult for the Romans to intervene in South Africa. As mentioned above, the Romans are not even really aware what is down there.

What might make it more fun, though, is this new representative system in Egypt. Obviously, it's only available to the nemhu, but if history is any guide, it won't be extended outside of Egypt proper...even to ethnically Egyptian nemhu.

This is probably true, at least initially. Probably there will be some revolts as a result of this until the system is extended throughout the empire.

The revolt of the nemhu and the limitation of the pharaohs' powers has set up some very dangerous precedents. Just look: The right of the people to rise up against authority if that authority violates their rights; The right to secure representation to limit the power of authority; The legitimacy of overtaxation as a causus belli for revolution. Just what makes these old-country Egyptians better than us anyway?

I agree, this has the potential to create a lot of conflict in the future.

Also, since governments never like to take in less money, I suspect the new Pharaoh will be looking to find a new source of wealth to replace that formerly extorted from the nemhu. So if taxes are increased in the rest of the empire... I'm sure you can see where I'm going with this.

good point...definitely something to consider.

It's a little off the main goal to create an Egyptian America in South Africa, but wouldn't it be interesting? I don't really see how it could harm the survival of Egypt, either. It is about time that something bad happened to Egypt that it can't just recover from a generation later.

Well, we still have over 1,000 years to go. A lot can happen. We will see...

 

[robertp6165]

"It's a little off the main goal to create an Egyptian America in South Africa, but wouldn't it be interesting? I don't really see how it could harm the survival of Egypt, either. It is about time that something bad happened to Egypt that it can't just recover from a generation later."

I concur. Egypt has never suffered anything really bad (other than the inbreeding tax-raising Pharaoh) or lost any territory, while Rome's suffered territorial losses and Persia has basically been run over by the Arabs. Admiral Matt's South African revolution theory is a VERY good way to go and I vote for it.

I think it, or something like it, will probably take place.

"Plus, are the Egyptians involved in the slave trade? This could butterfly into all sorts of fun stuff, esp. since there's now a good-sized African competitor in the form of Ghana.

Actually, no. Slavery was not a major factor in ancient Egypt. It did exist there, but there was never any large number of slaves in Egypt. There was always enough free population in Egypt to perform all the labor that needed to be performed, so there would not be a need to import large numbers of slaves. And it should be noted that in OTL the African slave trade was really a result of Islam getting into Africa. Since this doesn't happen in the ATL, the slave trade doesn't happen, either.

For an interesting article on the effect of Islam on the beginnings of the African slave trade, see the following link...

http://africanhistory.about.com/gi/...ttp://www.fordham.edu/halsall/med/lewis1.html

An especially interesting quote from the article...

"In one of the sad paradoxes of human history, it was the humanitarian reforms brought by Islam that resulted in a vast development of the slave trade inside, and still more outside, the Islamic empire. In the Roman world, the slave population was occasionally recruited from outside, when a new territory was conquered or a barbarian invasion repelled, but mostly, slaves came from internal sources. This was not possible in the Islamic empire, where, although slavery was maintained, enslavement was banned. The result was an increasingly massive importation of slaves from the outside. Like enslavement, mutilation was forbidden by Islamic law. The great numbers of eunuchs needed to preserve the sanctity of palaces, homes, and some holy places had to be imported from outside or, as often happened, "manufactured" at the frontier."

So, unlike the other civilizations which could get their slaves internally, Islam HAD to go outside to get their slaves...which is why they started importing black slaves from Africa. Interestingly, approximately 17,000,000 slaves were imported by the Muslim world from Africa during the Middle Ages. Only about 11,000,000 were imported into the Americas during the 400 years of the Trans-Atlantic slave trade.

 

[Sean Swaby]

Sub-Saharan Africa, the neglected region

Hey, robertp6165. I must say this is an excellent TL you have going here and I also wish to congratulate you on your recent marriage. May your married years be long and fruitful.

Yes, indeed, this is a great TL, lots of participation (Seab thinks longing about his own TL....), refreshing idea and excellent premise that is meeting the challange adequately.

However there are 2 items I wish to bring up:

1) You have Ghana founded in 750 AD but on the Second Carthaginian Empire thread it was established that Ghana was probably founded in 400 AD. I thought it was 750 AD, but a website I found made reference to Ghana in the 400s and in my Penguin Historical Atlas of Africa it states that "It was Berber merchants visiting the Sahel who brought back reports of the first Negro state we know of, the Soninke kingdom of Ghana.." and of course these merchants travelled across the trade routes running down the Sahara through the region known as Sanhaja. But these merchants it seems never bumped into Ghana when it was founded, they just happened to come across it, probably long after it was founded (otherwise Ghana probably wouldn't have jack to trade with them).

2) Egypt's African empire. Now I see no reason Egypt couldn't conquer the area you have it conquer in TTL, but you have left out a significant piece of African history and you appear to have the San become who they are not. Firstly you postulate :

Well, from 600 BC to about 320 AD, the only Egyptian presence south of the Horn of Africa was in a thin strip along the eastern coast (with an enclave reaching into Zimbabwe, where the mines of Ophir are located). The interior was not under Egyptian control. During this period, Egyptian settlers and cultural influence gradually filtered into the interior, as had happened with Nubia during the classic Egyptian period. So the San in South Africa (and other peoples of the interior of east Africa between the Horn of Africa and South Africa) had over 900 years to be "Egyptianized." I am assuming that they would have become similar to the Kushites/Nubians of the OTL...no longer tribes of stone-age hunter gatherers, but a collection of petty kingdoms based on Egyptian culture...by the time the Egyptians decided to move in and take over a large portion of the interior between 280 and 320 AD. And the long period of contact would have allowed the native population to rebuild after whatever epidemics caused by the initial contact had run their course. So in 1,000 AD, you have a mixed population in southern Africa (and the other Egyptian holdings in east Africa) which is minority native Egyptian and majority Egyptianized native.

Until about 1AD the San people were the only people to inhabit the area you have Egypt conquer. To their west in the Congo Basin dwelt the Pygmies (who still had their own languages up til then).

Now in 1AD two groups of Negroes began migrating from West Africa, across the Cameroon Mountaines (the original eastern limit of the Negroes): the Zande and the Bantu. The Zande were minor and only ended up in what is now the Central African Republic and northern Republic of the Congo (not the DR Congo). The Bantu ended up on the shores of Lake Victoria and in the western Rift Valley after crossing through and settling in what is now the northern DR Congo. The Bantu also went south along the coast after immediately leaving West Africa. By 200 AD the Bantus had basically surrounded the Pygmies who had withdrawn to the interior. The Pygmies learnt to live with the Bantu who surged around them, even adopting their languages (alas a sorry day for linguists). The San did nothing of the sort and were pushed back historically to the Kalahari by 650 AD.

Now the San are particularly interesting because from 8000 BC to the present they can be characterized thus: Average height 5ft 2 in, 157 cm and of yellow skin rather than the black or brown skin of the Negroes, Pygmies or Nilo-Saharans (subSaharan Africa's 3 other major anthropological groups) or the olive skin of the Hamitic and Semitic peoples of north Africa and Arabia. Their hair grows in tufts that give it a characteristic 'peppercorn' look. Their peculiar language consists of clicks and they have retained their ethnic identity and their Stone Age food gathering culture (the culture being retained up to at least 200AD)

If the Bantu actively colonized the area from 200AD onwards and the Europeans came in and turned the world upside down as suited them best, but in all of that the San never established petty kingdoms, became "Bantuized", "Europeanized", "Afrikaanized" or whatever-else-ized, why would they become "Egyptianized" and establish petty kingdoms? The Cushites and Nubians did so, yes, but then the Cushites and Nubians were both Hamito-Semetic just like the Coptic speaking Egyptians and thus it would be loads easier for them to do that. I rather doubt the Egyptians will even bother to try and translate from clicks to hieroglyphs. They will probably move south, establish a few military based colonies, declare their overlordship of such and such land, take a few San into slavery, but generally once the San realize that the Egyptians are not coming en masse, then they will probably go on with life as before, but only this time observe a few new customs, like calling their "ruler" Pharoah when in the area claimed by Egypt [although I doubt they will even care about the Pharoah or actually believe him to be their true ruler, instead looking on the head of local families or tribes as the real heads that matter and the Pharoah as some titular ruler]. The Egyptians for the most part I believe will be content to leave well enough alone and to settle here and there, especially near Ophir and along the southern African coast.

Now what happens when the Bantu reach eastern Africa? The Bantu came with corn and cattle, iron weapons and warrior castes. I rather doubt they will beat the Egyptians (but then the name Shaka Zulu nags at the back of my mind, something to do with this guy whipping the British Army with its guns...), but their should be at least some conflict worth mentioning in the ATL...

 

[Sean Swaby]

Whooops! forgot that Shaka was long dead by the time the British confronted the Zulus.
But the British still did lose the first time around.....

 

[robertp6165]

You have Ghana founded in 750 AD but on the Second Carthaginian Empire thread it was established that Ghana was probably founded in 400 AD. I thought it was 750 AD, but a website I found made reference to Ghana in the 400s and in my Penguin Historical Atlas of Africa it states that "It was Berber merchants visiting the Sahel who brought back reports of the first Negro state we know of, the Soninke kingdom of Ghana.." and of course these merchants travelled across the trade routes running down the Sahara through the region known as Sanhaja. But these merchants it seems never bumped into Ghana when it was founded, they just happened to come across it, probably long after it was founded (otherwise Ghana probably wouldn't have jack to trade with them).

Well, I am the first to admit my knowledge of African history is not perfect...but the sources I found about the Ghana kingdom state that it was founded about 750 AD. There were city states in the area prior to that, however...so perhaps the other sources which mention foundation in the 400s are talking about a Soninke controlled city-state whose ruler was called "The Ghana" (which is where the Ghana empire got it's name)?

"The Pygmies learnt to live with the Bantu who surged around them, even adopting their languages (alas a sorry day for linguists). The San did nothing of the sort and were pushed back historically to the Kalahari by 650 AD...If the Bantu actively colonized the area from 200AD onwards and the Europeans came in and turned the world upside down as suited them best, but in all of that the San never established petty kingdoms, became "Bantuized", "Europeanized", "Afrikaanized" or whatever-else-ized, why would they become "Egyptianized" and establish petty kingdoms?"

But were the San actually "pushed back," or did the groups outside the Kalahari simply become assimilated by the more advanced Bantu culture? Historically, we have evidence that assimilation between Hottentot (San) and Caffer (Bantu) groups outside the Kalahari was going on as recently as the 19th Century. The Kalahari area is a desert region, not very useful for farming and cattle herding, which is probably why the Bantu have not moved into the region and the San survive there today. If the San in the rest of the region historically were assimilated by the Bantu rather than driven away, which seems likely, then why could they not have been assimilated by the more advanced Egyptian culture which would have been invading the interior for almost 1,000 years before the Egyptians established political control over the region? If anything, the Egyptian culture...which was much more advanced than the Bantu culture...would be even more appealing than the Bantu culture would have been.

"The Cushites and Nubians did so, yes, but then the Cushites and Nubians were both Hamito-Semetic just like the Coptic speaking Egyptians and thus it would be loads easier for them to do that."

Well, the Egyptian tomb paintings and other pictorial representations make it clear that the Nubians/Kushites were black Africans...not olive-skinned like the Egyptians. So they were not Hamito-Semitic.

"I rather doubt the Egyptians will even bother to try and translate from clicks to hieroglyphs. They will probably move south, establish a few military based colonies, declare their overlordship of such and such land, take a few San into slavery, but generally once the San realize that the Egyptians are not coming en masse, then they will probably go on with life as before, but only this time observe a few new customs, like calling their "ruler" Pharoah when in the area claimed by Egypt [although I doubt they will even care about the Pharoah or actually believe him to be their true ruler, instead looking on the head of local families or tribes as the real heads that matter and the Pharoah as some titular ruler]. The Egyptians for the most part I believe will be content to leave well enough alone and to settle here and there, especially near Ophir and along the southern African coast."

No doubt that is exactly how Egyptian settlement in the area initially started...but over time, the Egyptian settlements will expand, and new trading settlements will be founded in the interior, and the Egyptianization of the surrounding regions begins.

Now what happens when the Bantu reach eastern Africa? The Bantu came with corn and cattle, iron weapons and warrior castes. I rather doubt they will beat the Egyptians (but then the name Shaka Zulu nags at the back of my mind, something to do with this guy whipping the British Army with its guns...), but their should be at least some conflict worth mentioning in the ATL...

Well, the Bantu arrived in these areas about 100 years before the Egyptians decided to expand their holdings in Africa by conquering the interior (and earlier in some of the regions). By that time Egyptian cultural influence and settlement had been going on in the area for up to almost 1,000 years. If the existing people in these areas had been significantly Egyptianized over the preceding 1,000 years, they would have been much better able to resist the Bantu when they came. So the Bantu might not ever get into southern and eastern Africa in any significant way. And since the Bantu now are in the position of having the less advanced culture, the historical force of cultural assimilation will now work against them instead of for them. Instead of the "Egyptianized" peoples of the interior becoming "Bantuized," the Bantus who do settle in the region will become "Egyptianized." And militarily, even Shaka and the Zulus (a much much later development...in the early centuries of Bantu migration, the Bantu tribes were not nearly so well organized or militarily formidable as the Zulus of the 19th Century) would not have been able to stand up to an Egyptian Army. Even if the Egyptians are not able to use cavalry to any great extent due to the tsetse fly (as Anthony Appleyard keeps pointing out...although the British and Boers seemed to have managed), the armored Egyptian infantry and foot archers would have decimated Shaka's army, which aside from a hide shield, was unarmored and had no missile force to speak of.

 

[Sean Swaby]

Well, I am the first to admit my knowledge of African history is not perfect...but the sources I found about the Ghana kingdom state that it was founded about 750 AD. There were city states in the area prior to that, however...so perhaps the other sources which mention foundation in the 400s are talking about a Soninke controlled city-state whose ruler was called "The Ghana" (which is where the Ghana empire got it's name)?

Well that is probably what happened then. Seems likely enough.

But were the San actually "pushed back," or did the groups outside the Kalahari simply become assimilated by the more advanced Bantu culture? Historically, we have evidence that assimilation between Hottentot (San) and Caffer (Bantu) groups outside the Kalahari was going on as recently as the 19th Century.

Well my source distinctly says they were pushed back and not assimilated (even partially) like the Pygmies. Just look at Africa today.. Pygmy communities still exist and are widely known in the DR Congo and they are still distinct except for their languages which are Bantu. Pygmies even today are distinctly smaller than the Bantu and differ slightly in facial features (like the nose).
Were you to travel throughout eastern and southern Africa today the only place you would find people who even remotely matched the description of the San would be in the Kalahari (where the San still live today). No yellow Africans who speak in clicks anyplace-else. Of course there was some amount of interaction between the San and the Bantu but it was very limited and there is only one Bantu tribe I know of that had incorporated some clicks into its language from interaction with the San in southern Africa. Even then the language is still mostly Bantu.

If the San in the rest of the region historically were assimilated by the Bantu rather than driven away, which seems likely, then why could they not have been assimilated by the more advanced Egyptian culture which would have been invading the interior for almost 1,000 years before the Egyptians established political control over the region? If anything, the Egyptian culture...which was much more advanced than the Bantu culture...would be even more appealing than the Bantu culture would have been.

Because the San in the rest of the region were mostly not assimilated. Like somebodyelse said, they were like the Native Americans (I guess "Native Africans") of the area. Considering that the San didn't even attempt to assimilate German culture or British culture or any Bantu culture such as the Shona over their history and that likewise the Native Americans only adopted limited things from the Europeans, I still see no reason for the San to assimilate to the Egyptian culture (which despite the fact that it was more "advanced" would still be an alien culture). Native peoples tend not to be too shallow and usually have great reverence for their own way of doing things and their own culture, so other cultures will not "appeal" to them like a side order of chicken and fries. Hence Native Americans, especially Inuits, are still distinct from Europeans and are not just "red Europeans" or "extremely cold and slant eyed Europeans". Hence also why from 1AD to 2004AD (all of over 2,000 years of history, twice as long as your Egypt has been trying to influence the San) the San still speak in clicks and have 'peppercorn' hair and are distinctly more yellow in complexion. Hence also why India still has Hinduism and didn't convert en mass to Christianity and speaking Queen's English. To have the San lose their culture and gain the Egyptian one you would need an active Egyptian program or institution to erase San culture and language. European imposed slavery did that quite well for the African slaves sent to the Americas and Rome's destruction of Carthage (to the point of sowing salt in the earth) is similarly successful. Look on Russia and Poland. Constant attempts to actively russify many areas (Poland included) were only partially successful over 400 years of history and in some cases abysmal failures.

Well, the Egyptian tomb paintings and other pictorial representations make it clear that the Nubians/Kushites were black Africans...not olive-skinned like the Egyptians. So they were not Hamito-Semitic.

Well, the ancient Egyptians were decidely darker than the modern Egyptians who are really Arabs and the fact that the Nubians and Cushites were black is not a strong basis to deny them from being in the Hamitic branch of the Hamito-Semitic group (now know as Afro-Asiatic) [although you were correct about the Nubians or the original ones anyway- see below]. Pygmies were and are black, but they and the Bantus are more genetically divergent from each other than Han Chinese are from Italians. Language is what is used to define Hamitic, Bantu and San (and characteristics are also used, but not primarily except for the Pygmies who dropped their languages).
According to several sources the Cushitic languages are in the Afro-Asiatic group (Somali is a descendent Cushitic language and nobody can deny that it is extremely similar to Arabic) and the Cushites gave rise to the Chadic languages which are also Afro-Asiatic/Hamitic.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afro-Asiatic_languages
http://35.1911encyclopedia.org/H/HA/HAMITIC_RACES_AND_LANGUAGES.htm
http://www.encyclopedia.com/html/I/IX1-H1amiticl.asp
http://www.encyclopedia.com/html/A/Afroasia.asp


The Nubians were Nilo-Saharan (sorry - the atlas hatches the Nilo-Saharans in a similar patter to the Hamito-Semetic group and of course since they were so near Egypt it got confusing) and were sub-Saharan African (but of course, they were neither Bantu, nor Pygmy).

Well, the Bantu arrived in these areas about 100 years before the Egyptians decided to expand their holdings in Africa by conquering the interior (and earlier in some of the regions). By that time Egyptian cultural influence and settlement had been going on in the area for up to almost 1,000 years.

You lost me from this point on. The Bantu arrived in the area starting around 1AD and they more or less completely colonized their present distribution (everything except the Kalahari) by 650AD. By 200AD they were near Lake Nyasa and were settling in what is now northern Angola and were reaching the shores of Eastern Africa. By 500AD they were settled along the eastern African coast and were moving across the Limpopo into what is now South Africa. (Around that time the Malagasy had by luck arrived in Madagascar- in your TL, I expect that if the Malagasy do arrive from the Indonesia area then they will be in for a surprise what with Egyptians on Madagascar already).
From what you said, the Egyptians decide to expand from the coast into eastern Africa in TTL around 100-150AD. Now how can there be cultural influence by the Egyptians in the area for up to almost 1,000 years (making it around 900BC earliest) when the TL starts in 525 BC?

So the Bantu might not ever get into southern and eastern Africa in any significant way.

well, not the south african or east african coast, but unless the Egyptians control and settle the interior (which you do not have them do for at least 100 years after the Bantu begin arriving) the Bantu will be leading their cattle into the area before the Egyptians.

And since the Bantu now are in the position of having the less advanced culture, the historical force of cultural assimilation will now work against them instead of for them. Instead of the "Egyptianized" peoples of the interior becoming "Bantuized," the Bantus who do settle in the region will become "Egyptianized."

Well I could see some of the Bantu becoming partially Egyptianized in that they may adopt one or two gods, have some Egyptian words and maybe use Egyptian writing form. The difference between the Bantu and the San would be that as pastoralist the Bantu will probably have much more contact and trade with the Egyptians so some bits of Egyptian culture will enter Bantu society (and vice versa), but the San being food gatherers, had no real need for large societies and contact with other people, hence they would more keep to themselves. If the Egyptians take some Bantu as slaves for the mines in Ophir then I could see some "Ophir Bantus" developing which would be totally Egyptianized, speaking Egyptian (or at least a creole of it) and not having any native gods or culture left. I would expect any Bantu settling in the areas of Egyptian rule to at least have a working knowledge of Egyptian and have some idea about how Egyptian society functions.

 

[robertp6165]

Well my source distinctly says they were pushed back and not assimilated (even partially) like the Pygmies. Just look at Africa today.. Pygmy communities still exist and are widely known in the DR Congo and they are still distinct except for their languages which are Bantu. Pygmies even today are distinctly smaller than the Bantu and differ slightly in facial features (like the nose).

Were you to travel throughout eastern and southern Africa today the only place you would find people who even remotely matched the description of the San would be in the Kalahari (where the San still live today). No yellow Africans who speak in clicks anyplace-else. Of course there was some amount of interaction between the San and the Bantu but it was very limited and there is only one Bantu tribe I know of that had incorporated some clicks into its language from interaction with the San in southern Africa. Even then the language is still mostly Bantu.

What probably accounts for the non-assimilation of both the Pygmies and the case of the San is geographic isolation. The Pygmies lived in dense jungle regions and the San who survived lived in a desert. Neither of these offered the Bantu an especially suitable area for their lifestyle. The Bantus were able to practice their lifestyle in the jungle better than they were able to do in the desert, so the pygmies were partly assimilated and the San of the Kalahari were not assimilated. If the pygmies had been truly assimilated, interbreeding would have long since erased any differences between them and the Bantus. I would argue that this is in fact what happened to the San outside of the Kalahari.

Because the San in the rest of the region were mostly not assimilated.

Not true. The San in the Kalahari were not assimilated. We simply do not know the fate of the San who lived outside the Kalahari. All we know is they aren't there anymore. There is little evidence the Bantu came as conquerors and displaced them. Assimilation seems as good an explanation as any, and indeed, there is historical evidence that this did, in fact occur, and was still occuring, right up into 18th and 19th centuries (when European observers reported seeing the phenomenon). The following link has an interesting discussion of this scenario...

http://www.bakeru.edu/faculty/jrichards/World Civ II/E-Sources/E7Bantu.htm

and I will quote the most pertinent section of said article...

"Khoisan hunter-gatherer communities were probably few in numbers. Agriculture supported denser populations, so they were soon outnumbered. They may sometimes have become Bantu-ised by entering a client relationship, either in time of famine, or through cultural attraction. The process of 'becoming Hausa' in central Nigeria at the present time - the attraction of Hausa language and dress, and sometimes of Islam - offers a parallel to the latter possibility. The continuing process of 'becoming Bantu' is on record in eighteenth-century South Africa, where it was said of a Khoi community that 'they were certainly a mixture of Hottentots and Caffers [Xhosa], as their language had an affinity with both these nations; [physically] they bore a greater resemblance to the caffers, several of whom they likewise had at that time among them'."

"Considering that the San didn't even attempt to assimilate German culture or British culture or any Bantu culture such as the Shona over their history and that likewise the Native Americans only adopted limited things from the Europeans, I still see no reason for the San to assimilate to the Egyptian culture (which despite the fact that it was more "advanced" would still be an alien culture)."

Geographic isolation explains both. The surviving San, as mentioned above, lived in a desert that nobody else care to have. As for the Native Americans, the ones who maintained their cultural traditions are almost exclusively the western tribes which, due to white racism, were segregated on reservations and virtually ostracized from white American society. The Eastern tribes have, almost in total, been assimilated into white culture. There are a few exceptions (the Cherokee of North Carolina, for example) but they are few and far between. It should also be pointed out that the native Americans who have kept most of their culture are those whose contact with European/white American culture has been shortest. The western tribes have been in extensive contact with white culture for less than 200 years, the eastern tribes for less than 500 years. Yet that 300 years of difference means that the eastern tribes are almost completely assimilated, whereas the western tribes are not. How much more difference would there be if the Native Americans had been in contact with Europeans, and immersed in their culture, for 1,000 years?

"Native peoples tend not to be too shallow and usually have great reverence for their own way of doing things and their own culture, so other cultures will not "appeal" to them like a side order of chicken and fries. Hence Native Americans, especially Inuits, are still distinct from Europeans and are not just "red Europeans" or "extremely cold and slant eyed Europeans".

Geographic isolation again. Inuits live in the Arctic. Not too many Europeans up there to assimilate them.

"Hence also why from 1AD to 2004AD (all of over 2,000 years of history, twice as long as your Egypt has been trying to influence the San) the San still speak in clicks and have 'peppercorn' hair and are distinctly more yellow in complexion.

Again...your example is not a good one. The San in the Kalahari still speak in clicks and have peppercorn hair and yellow skin. The ones outside the Kalahari were probably assimilated by the Bantu.

"Hence also why India still has Hinduism and didn't convert en mass to Christianity and speaking Queen's English.

Two objections to this example...the British never came close to forming a majority population in the area, and small populations do not generally assimilate large ones. The Egyptians in the areas in question probably do, because the Khoisan/San populations are so small. Second, the difference in the levels of culture between Britain and the Indians was a lot smaller than the difference between the Egyptians and the San. So British culture is going to be less appealing to the Indians than Egyptian culture would be to the San.

"To have the San lose their culture and gain the Egyptian one you would need an active Egyptian program or institution to erase San culture and language.

Not true. In OTL the Nubians/Kushites retained their own language but adopted Egyptian culture almost in total. There is no reason why the San could not do the same.

"Look on Russia and Poland. Constant attempts to actively russify many areas (Poland included) were only partially successful over 400 years of history and in some cases abysmal failures.

Again, bad example. The difference between Russian and Polish culture was practically non-existant, and indeed, in some areas, Polish culture may actually have been more advanced during some periods of time. The Poles had no reason to want to adopt a culture that was not more advanced, and indeed may have been inferior, to their own.

"Well, the ancient Egyptians were decidely darker than the modern Egyptians who are really Arabs...

On what basis do you say that of the ancient Egyptians? The evidence that I have seen (tomb paintings, other pictorial and representative art) strongly indicates they were similarly complected to the other peoples of the ancient near east. Egyptians and people from Canaan, or Egyptians and people from Minoan Crete, are all depicted in the same flesh tones. These people would all have been olive-skinned like most present day inhabitants of the middle east. Nubians/Kushites are always depicted as BLACK...completely different.

"...and the fact that the Nubians and Cushites were black is not a strong basis to deny them from being in the Hamitic branch of the Hamito-Semitic group (now know as Afro-Asiatic) [although you were correct about the Nubians or the original ones anyway- see below].

You are speaking of language groups. I was not.

You lost me from this point on. The Bantu arrived in the area starting around 1AD and they more or less completely colonized their present distribution (everything except the Kalahari) by 650AD. By 200AD they were near Lake Nyasa and were settling in what is now northern Angola and were reaching the shores of Eastern Africa. By 500AD they were settled along the eastern African coast and were moving across the Limpopo into what is now South Africa.

Pottery which has been linked to the Bantu migration and dating to about 200 AD has been found in Natal. So the Bantu were there approximately 100 years before the Egyptians brought the interior under their full control (in about 320 AD). There were successive waves of migration, of course, so that may explain the discrepancy in our dates.

"(Around that time the Malagasy had by luck arrived in Madagascar- in your TL, I expect that if the Malagasy do arrive from the Indonesia area then they will be in for a surprise what with Egyptians on Madagascar already).

Very true. But sources are not in agreement as to when the Malagasy got there. Some state in the 5th Century AD, others state they have been there as much as 2000 years. In the latter case they would have arrived in the last years of 1st Century BC, or in the early 1st century AD, and would have been there for nearly 300 years before the Egyptians got there. In the former case, of course, the Egyptians would have gotten there first.

"From what you said, the Egyptians decide to expand from the coast into eastern Africa in TTL around 100-150AD. Now how can there be cultural influence by the Egyptians in the area for up to almost 1,000 years (making it around 900BC earliest) when the TL starts in 525 BC?"

Well, in the TL, Egyptian settlement of the coast of east Africa begins shortly after 600 BC, and the Egyptian armies begin moving into the interior beginning in 280 BC (the conquest is not completed until 320 AD). So that would have been 880 to 920 years of Egyptian cultural influence before the conquest was completed.

"...unless the Egyptians control and settle the interior (which you do not have them do for at least 100 years after the Bantu begin arriving) the Bantu will be leading their cattle into the area before the Egyptians.

exactly what I said. The point I was trying to make is that there is no reason to specially include any mention of conflict between the Bantu and the Egyptians in the TL because they were already there and thus included in the section detailing the conquest of the interior. Also, as mentioned in my previous message, the Bantu may not actually be there in this TL...since the peoples of the interior are Egyptianized to a large extent (exclusive of the San in the Kalahari, of course), they are better able to resist the encroachment of the Bantu, or the Bantu may have been assimilated into the Egyptian culture they found upon arriving.

 

[robertp6165]

Saite Timeline, continued...

SAITE TIMELINE, 1000-1200 AD

1003 AD--Thorfin Karlsefni leads an expedition to Vinland from Greenland,
where they found a settlement. His wife, Gudrid, will give birth later that year to
the first European child born in the new land, a boy named Snorri.

1006 AD--After conflicts with the Skraelings (the native inhabitants of
Vinland...either Amerindians or Eskimos) and internal dissentions among
themselves, the Norse abandon their settlement in Vinland and return to
Greenland. However, they will return...

1010 AD--Word of the discovery of new lands west of Greenland has reached
the court of Norse King Olaf Tryggvason. King Olaf orders a colonization
expedition to be fitted out and sent to Vinland. Olaf will send successive fleets
to Vinland each year for the next ten years with new settlers and fresh supplies,
and his effort will ensure that the Norse settlement in the new lands are a
permanent one.

1011 AD onward--The first Norse colonization fleet reaches Vinland in 1011 AD.
They found the town of New Oslo, which will prove to be the first permanent
European city in the New World. Later that year, another settlement is made in
Markland, where it is planned to exploit the timber available there. Successive
expeditions sent by King Olaf Tryggvason will establish other towns in Vinland
and Markland, as well as farther south along the coast, all the way down to Cape
Cod. By the end of the century, the Norse are firmly established in the coastal
regions of the new lands, and are gradually pushing inland as well. However,
news of these settlements does not filter out to the rest of the world for a long
time.

1012 AD--Over the preceding years, trade with Ghana has significantly increased
the gold reserves available to the Roman Empire. In 1012 AD, the Emperor
Trajan II assumes the throne of the Roman Empire, vowing to restore Rome to
it’s old greatness. Trajan initiates many reforms in the Empire aimed at
rebuilding Roman military power. Trajan enacts a law which allows any slave to
gain his freedom by joining the army, with the imperial treasury to compensate
the owners of said slaves (the number of slave manumissions, however, is
limited by the available places in the ranks of the legions). He also makes
changes to the tax laws which encourage Roman citizens to consider a military
career. He also reforms the army, reducing the term of service from 25 years to
7, with bonuses for those soldiers who re-enlist for a second term, and a land
grant for those who complete at least 2 terms of service. Taken together, these
measures provide a huge surge of new recruits for the army, which Trajan
nearly doubles in size. Trajan also reorganizes the army, changing many
infantry legions into cavalry units. The composition of Trajan’s new army is now
50% armored legionary cavalry (armed with lance and bow), 20% light cavalry
archers, and 30% armored legionary infantry (mainly used in defense of
fortifications). The Roman army is now very mobile, highly disciplined, and
packs a signicant missile punch as well as great shock power. It is a truly
formidable force. Trajan also reorganizes the Roman navy, particularly the
Atlantic and Baltic Sea fleets. Roman naval vessels in these areas are now
incorporating many features of Norse design, and Roman fleets are fully capable
of taking on a Norse fleet and winning.

1016-1020 AD--War between the Rus and the Khazars. The Rus push the
Khazars out of the Crimea and establish their southern border on the Black Sea.

1020-1030 AD--War between Rome, the Magyars, and the Bulgars. Emperor
Trajan II, in a series of brutal campaigns, conquers the Magyars and Bulgars and
pushes the eastern frontier of the Roman Empire to the line of the Nieman and
Bug Rivers and the Carpathian Mountains. Trajan orders construction of a
series of strong fortifications to defend the new frontier.

1020-1039 AD--The Great Rebellion in the Egyptian Empire. One of the
compromises which allowed the new constitution to be adopted in Egypt was that
the new constitution only applies within the borders of Egypt proper, as it was
the nemhu of Egypt itself who supported the rebellion which brought Psamtik XV
to power. In the imperial provinces, direct rule by the Pharaoh still persists, and
Psamtik has taken advantage of his free hand in these areas to keep taxes high.
He is not quite as brutal about it as the Memphite Pharaohs were, but
nevertheless the nemhu in the imperial provinces, both those who are ethnically
Egyptian and those who are Egyptianized natives, consider this situation a gross
injustice. Therefore, dis-satisfaction is seething in many of the provinces, and in
1020 AD rebellion breaks out spontaneously (or not so spontaneously...although
it is not known at the time, it will be later discovered that agents of Rome and the
Caliphate had a significant hand in formenting many of these rebellions) in many
places. The rebellions are not coordinated, however, and the Pharaoh’s armies
are able to deal with them individually as they occur. But economic life in the
empire is severely disrupted, and there is large loss of life as a result of the
revolts. Further revolts will flare up intermittently over the two decades, taxing
the military resources of the empire.

1021 AD--Pharaoh Psamtik XV dies in battle while leading one of the armies
suppressing a revolt in Nubia, and is succeeded by Psamtik XVI. Also in this
year, King Olaf Tryggvason of the Norse Empire dies, and is succeeded by his
nephew, Olaf Haraldson, who takes the throne as King Olaf II. The new king
continues the policies of his great precedessor.

1021-1023 AD--War between Egypt and Rome. Taking advantage of the chaos
in the Egyptian Empire caused by the Great Rebellion, which they are partially
responsible for formenting, Roman Emperor Trajan II declares war on Egypt.
Roman armies invade Cyrenacia and Syria. In Cyrenacia, Rome once again
takes the city of Cyrene and the surrounding region. In Syria, the system of
Egyptian fortifications stymies them, as it has earlier attempts at conquest.
Pharaoh Psamtik XVI sues for peace, and Rome agrees. Rome’s terms are
severe...she is to keep Cyrenacia, and Egypt is to pay a yearly indemnity of
10,000 talents of gold each year for 20 years. Egypt is also to lower it’s tolls on
Roman shipping passing through the Suez canal. After much hand-wringing,
Psamtik agrees.

1031-1032--War between Rome and the Norse. Emperor Trajan II leads a
Roman army across the Oceanus Britannicus in an attempted reconquest of
Britain. However, the Norse prove to be a tougher opponent than the Magyars
and Bulgars, and Trajan is killed in battle in early 1032 AD outside Londinium.
The Roman army in Britain is withdrawn shortly after. Britain remains in Norse
hands.

1032-1072 AD--The Time of Troubles in the Roman Empire. Unfortunately, one
thing Trajan did not reform was the Roman system of succession, and upon his
death, civil war breaks out in the empire. No less than 25 weak emperors will
claw their way to the throne over the next 40 years, only to be overthrown by the
next, no less weak, successor.

1038 AD--The Seljuks, led by Toghrul Beg, invade Persia, moving their capital to
Isfahan.

1039 AD--Pharaoh Psamtik XVI dies, succeeded by Psamtik XVII. The new
Pharaoh declares that the Constitution of 1000 AD will apply to nemhu in the
imperial provinces, as it does to the nemhu in Egypt proper. The Constitution is
amended, and the Council of the 100 Elders becomes the Council of the 400
Elders, with 200 Elders representing nemhu in Egypt proper, and the remaining
200 representing nemhu in the rest of the empire. The Great Rebellion finally
ends, and normality begins to return to the Egyptian Empire.

1055 AD--The Seljuks invade Mesopotamia and install themselves in Baghdad
under the suzerainty of the Abbasids.

1064 AD--The Seljuks invade Asia Minor but are defeated by the Romans.

1071 AD--The Seljuks defeat the Roman army in Asia Minor, killing Emperor
Romulus Augustus III, and establish a Sultanate in Anatolia. The Romans
manage to hold on to most of the coast, but lose the interior.

1072 AD--Revolution in Rome. Following the death of the Emperor Romulus
Augustus III in battle with the Seljuk Turks, a Roman Senator, Septimus Cato,
siezes power in Rome. Cato is allied with a Roman general of Magyar descent,
one Stephanus Flavius, and together they form a potent combination. Cato is a
student of the old Roman Republic, and in cooperation with Flavius, decides to
take the extraordinary step of reviving it. The office of Emperor is declared
permanently null and void, and a new constitution is drawn up which gives
legislative power to the Senate (now expanded to include representatives from
all provinces of the empire), which will be elected by the people. Executive
power will be exercised by two Consuls, who, as in the old Republic, will hold
power on alternate days. The Consuls will be elected by the Senate. The
franchise is extended to all male Roman citizens who are property owners, as
well as to all Roman soldiers, regardless of whether they are property holders or
not. Cato and Flavius are elected as the first Consuls of the new Republic.
One of the first laws enacted by the new Senate is that all Roman soldiers, from
the highest general to the lowliest legionary, must take a holy oath swearing
allegiance to the Roman state. The new law also specifies that pay for Roman
soldiers will come directly from a new civilian department created by the
Republican government, rather than from army paymasters under the control of
the army generals. This will serve to create loyalty to the new regime, rather to
their generals, among the rank and file of the army, making it more difficult for
army generals with imperial aspirations to engineer revolts in the future. The
new Republic will be the most stable government Rome has enjoyed in
centuries.

1076 AD--The Seljuks invade Syria and Palestine, sparking war with Egypt. The
Egyptian field army is crushed near Damascus, but the Seljuks are unable to
take the many Egyptian fortresses and walled cities. The Seljuks lay waste to
the land and then retreat back to Asia Minor. It will take many years for these
regions to recover their former prosperity.

1080 AD--Pharaoh Psamtik XVII dies, succeeded by Necho XV.

1080-1100 AD--Expansion of the Norse Empire in the Baltic. The Norse conquer
the pagan proto-Latvians, Lithuanians, Estonians, and Finns along the Baltic
coast and in Finland and convert them to Christianity.

1091--The Seljuks move their capital to Baghdad and depose the Abbasid Caliph
installing one of his younger sons as a puppet ruler. The Caliph’s eldest son,
Ahmad, manages to escape and takes ship to India. There he finds support
among the virtually independent Muslim rulers there, who are opposed to the
upstart Seljuks, and establishes a rival Caliphate in India.

1092-1095--The people of Arabia never liked being ruled by the Abbasid Caliphs,
who they view as usurpers and whose pro-Persian policies have irked them.
They like even less being ruled over by an Abbasid puppet controlled by the
upstart Turks. The Omayyad “Caliphate in Exile” takes advantage of this to
forment another revolt in Arabia, with significant Egyptian help, and this time, the
rebellion is successful. Omar ibn Yazzid, the head of the Omayyad house living
in Egypt, comes to Arabia to assume his throne as Caliph Omar III. The new
Omayyad Caliph declares his intention to purify Islam of the degeneracy which
has arisen under the effete Abbasid Caliphs and to restore Arabs to their rightful
position as the chosen people of Islam. He gains almost fanatical support from
Arabs in Arabia and elsewhere.

c. 1100 AD--In the region around Lake Chad, various city states are united by
the king of the city of Bornu to form the Bornu Kingdom. Like Ghana, it prospers
by the trans-Sahara trade in salt, gold, and other exotic goods from the African
interior which are readily marketable in the cities of the Roman and Egyptian
empires. It also will periodically clash militarily with Ghana along their mutual
border. Also around this time, small city states begin forming in the forests south
of Ghana. Over the succeeding years, these will begin to combine into larger
states.

1100-1105 AD--War between Rome and the Rus. The conflict is inconclusive,
and a treaty is signed establishing the borders and basically re-affirming the
status quo antebellum.

1104 AD--Pharaoh Necho XV dies, succeeded by Ahmosi X. Ahmosi is a
conservative who deeply disapproves of the power-sharing with the nemhu which
the Pharaohs must now endure, and with the backing of certain army generals,
declares martial law, dissolves the Council of the 400 Elders and reinstates
direct rule by the Pharaohs. The nemhu throughout the empire are very
resentful and begin plotting his downfall.

1105-1107 AD--Pro-Omayyad revolts among the Arab population in the Seljuk
empire. The Seljuks brutally repress the revolts. Thousands of Arabs flee to the
Neo-Omayyad Caliphate.

1109 AD--Revolt in Egypt and elsewhere in the Egyptian Empire. The nemhu,
with support from most of the army, revolt and overthrow Pharaoh Ahmosi X.
The Pharaoh dies in mysterious circumstances while in army custody shortly
afterward, and is succeeded by his son, Psamtik XVIII. Psamtik, who never
approved of his father’s actions, reinstates the Constitution of 1000 AD, and a
new Council of the 400 Elders is elected. The new Council demands, and
receives, amendments to the Constitution which make it impossible for the
Pharaoh to dissolve the Council and to declare martial law without the approval
of the Council. To show his commitment to the new Constitution, Psamtik has
the full text of it engraved on a wall of the great temple at Karnak, one the holiest
sites in all Egypt.

1110-1115 AD--War between the Seljuks and the Neo-Omayyads. The war is
inconclusive.

1118 AD--Arabs import gunpowder from China, but they do not learn the formula
at this time. It is used in magic tricks and fireworks, but has no military
applications as yet.

1120-1130 AD--War between Rome and the Norse Empire. The war is mainly
fought at sea, with several large naval battles being fought in the Oceanus
Britannicus, the Baltic Sea, and the North Sea. No advantage is gained by either
side, although Norse and Roman raids on each other’s coastlines cause much
destruction. Finally, a treaty is signed in 1130 AD.

1141 AD--Pharaoh Psamtik XVIII dies, succeeded by Necho XVI.

1150 AD--The Seljuks attack the Khazars in the Caucasus. The Khazars defeat
the Turks and a treaty is signed shortly afterward.

1152-1160 AD--War between the Rus and the Norse Empire. The Khazars ally
themselves with the Norse and re-capture the Crimean region. The Norse gain a
strip of territory connecting their Baltic Sea territories (in OTL Latvia, Lithuania,
and Estonia) with their territories in Finland.

1157 AD--Pharaoh Necho XVI dies childless, leaving no heirs. Not wishing the
land to fall into civil war again, Necho has left a will, bequeathing the throne to a
boyhood friend from Sais who is also a distant cousin (descended from a bastard
son of Psamtik XVII), who takes the throne as Rameses XXIV. Thus begins the
34th Dynasty.

1160-1165 AD--War between the Seljuks and the Abbasid Caliphate in India.
The Seljuks invade India in an attempt to oust the rival Abbasid Caliph, but are
defeated by the Caliph’s army near Delhi. The Caliph responds with an invasion
of his own, and reaches almost to the eastern Seljuk capital at Isfahan before his
army is finally defeated and forced to retreat back across the Indus. A treaty is
signed in 1165, establishing the border between the two empires.

1170-1179 AD--Rome allies itself with Egypt, and together, the two powers push
the Seljuks out of Anatolia. Rome and Egypt divide the newly conquered lands
between them, setting the border at the Taurus Mountains and the Euphrates.
This begins a period of cooperation between the two empires which will prove
very profitable for both over the next couple of centuries.

1190 AD--Pharaoh Rameses XXIV dies, succeeded by Seti X. Seti will gain
fame as “The Builder” due to his many large construction projects throughout the
empire, which exceed in scope even those of his famous predecessor, Rameses
II “The Great.”

c. 1200 AD--Arabs learn the formula of gunpowder from the Chinese, but it’s
military potential is not immediately recognized. Within five years, Egyptian
scientists also learn the formula, and it passes from there to Rome.

 

[robertp6165]

Saite Timline map

Here is a map to go with the most recent installment of the timeline.

 

[robertp6165]

Here is a map to go with the most recent installment of the timeline.

And here is another...

 

[Sean Swaby]

Not true. The San in the Kalahari were not assimilated. We simply do not know the fate of the San who lived outside the Kalahari. All we know is they aren't there anymore. There is little evidence the Bantu came as conquerors and displaced them. Assimilation seems as good an explanation as any, and indeed, there is historical evidence that this did, in fact occur, and was still occuring, right up into 18th and 19th centuries (when European observers reported seeing the phenomenon). The following link has an interesting discussion of this scenario...

http://www.bakeru.edu/faculty/jrich...ces/E7Bantu.htm

and I will quote the most pertinent section of said article...

"Khoisan hunter-gatherer communities were probably few in numbers. Agriculture supported denser populations, so they were soon outnumbered. They may sometimes have become Bantu-ised by entering a client relationship, either in time of famine, or through cultural attraction. The process of 'becoming Hausa' in central Nigeria at the present time - the attraction of Hausa language and dress, and sometimes of Islam - offers a parallel to the latter possibility. The continuing process of 'becoming Bantu' is on record in eighteenth-century South Africa, where it was said of a Khoi community that 'they were certainly a mixture of Hottentots and Caffers [Xhosa], as their language had an affinity with both these nations; [physically] they bore a greater resemblance to the caffers, several of whom they likewise had at that time among them'."

Very interesting website and very convincing and point conceded.

However on the following I only partially agree:

Geographic isolation explains both. The surviving San, as mentioned above, lived in a desert that nobody else care to have. As for the Native Americans, the ones who maintained their cultural traditions are almost exclusively the western tribes which, due to white racism, were segregated on reservations and virtually ostracized from white American society. The Eastern tribes have, almost in total, been assimilated into white culture. There are a few exceptions (the Cherokee of North Carolina, for example) but they are few and far between. It should also be pointed out that the native Americans who have kept most of their culture are those whose contact with European/white American culture has been shortest. The western tribes have been in extensive contact with white culture for less than 200 years, the eastern tribes for less than 500 years. Yet that 300 years of difference means that the eastern tribes are almost completely assimilated, whereas the western tribes are not. How much more difference would there be if the Native Americans had been in contact with Europeans, and immersed in their culture, for 1,000 years?

Geographic isolation partly explains both. However, the eastern tribes were not mostly assimilated. They were mostly exterminated. As you yourself pointed out the horrible racism displayed by the Europeans and their descendent Americans segregated the Native Americans from their society. There was some assimilation, but mostly there was exploitation [we sign a nice fancy treaty with one hand and then take away everything with the other hand and meanwhile send your people into exile ensuring that a good percentage of them die along the way]. Certainly in the Caribbean where I live, there is narry a Native American (Taino or Carib) to be found, except in some very isolated communities in Guyana and Surinam and Dominica (for special reasons on that island). Reason: the Spaniards (and to a lesser extent the French, Dutch and British) mostly used them as slaves (til they all died), mistreat them and then introduced smallpox. The Native Americans who kept their culture by being in contact for the shortest time also happened to have been exposed to European racism for the shortest time as well (and luckily were able to survive contact until those racist views changed). Racist societies do not tend to integrate and assimilate different groups(witness South Africa and the American South pre-1960s).

Not true. In OTL the Nubians/Kushites retained their own language but adopted Egyptian culture almost in total. There is no reason why the San could not do the same.

In OTL the Cushites are related to the Egyptians (so their culture was probably similar). The Nubians just retained their language. They wrote in Coptic script (another reason I confused Nubians for being in the Afroasiatic group) adopted from Egypt. Nubian must have been influenced by Coptic. And then what of the example of the African slaves in the Americas? Another example which follows on your point of large populations assimilating small ones (so my British-Indian example was not good as you rightly pointed out) is the Turkic Bulgars who mostly assimilated into the culture and language of the Slavs they ruled. Also what of the vulgar Latin speaking Goths and so forth who basically took over the Western Roman Empire? They adopted Roman culture and language (well a debased form of it).

Again, bad example. The difference between Russian and Polish culture was practically non-existant, and indeed, in some areas, Polish culture may actually have been more advanced during some periods of time. The Poles had no reason to want to adopt a culture that was not more advanced, and indeed may have been inferior, to their own.

My point was not that Russia or Poland had a superior culture (I believe that neither culture was superior to the other), but that people tend to view their own cultures dearly and even under active programs to introduce another culture, they tend not to assimilate. Some may view other cultures as advanced and inferior (though I hesitate to do so...it feels uncomfortable), but did the Native Americans generally view European culture as appealing and worth adopting? The Poles had no such view of the Russian culture (which probably wasn't that different) and the Berbers and Arabs certainly did not view French culture as such in Algeria.

You are speaking of language groups. I was not.

I started out speaking of language groups. The San, Negroes and Pygmies were not only distinct culturally before 1AD but linguistically and the Hamitic-Semitic group was similarly distinct culturally and linguistically.
Egyptian tomb paintings are just that. Paintings. They do not write down what the Cushites spoke and what their original culture was like, only that they looked darker. The Somali today are black Africans, yet they are Afroasiatic/Hamito-Semetic. The Somali come from the Cushites, as do the Chadic speakers. Even on the Arabian Peninsula, not everyone is uniform olive skinned. That mainly applies to the northern Arabs. Yemenis are Arabs but they are distinctly darker (and would be called black by some). The Cushites probably came from southern Arabia.

Pottery which has been linked to the Bantu migration and dating to about 200 AD has been found in Natal. So the Bantu were there approximately 100 years before the Egyptians brought the interior under their full control (in about 320 AD). There were successive waves of migration, of course, so that may explain the discrepancy in our dates.

Excellent, that clears up everything.

Very true. But sources are not in agreement as to when the Malagasy got there. Some state in the 5th Century AD, others state they have been there as much as 2000 years. In the latter case they would have arrived in the last years of 1st Century BC, or in the early 1st century AD, and would have been there for nearly 300 years before the Egyptians got there. In the former case, of course, the Egyptians would have gotten there first.

Well pick and date and run with it. Its your TL so you can do what you want within reason if the TL is faraway enough. Gonna have the Malagasy hit or miss Madagascar? I personally think it would be interesting if the Malagasy came and found Egyptians there......just imagine it... in 500AD on the peaceful west coast of Madagascar (what would the Egyptians call it?), the local Egyptians were surprised one early morn when boats appeared on their shores carrying people who were most strange indeed..not a word they said could be understood and their dress was most unusual.....eventually by 530AD when some amount of translation had been done, the Egyptians learned of a vast island archipelago to the east, beyond India with lush forests and fields of spices.... [or you could have the originally Malagasy fail in 500AD and then a new set try again by the the late 1200s...]

Well, in the TL, Egyptian settlement of the coast of east Africa begins shortly after 600 BC, and the Egyptian armies begin moving into the interior beginning in 280 BC (the conquest is not completed until 320 AD). So that would have been 880 to 920 years of Egyptian cultural influence before the conquest was completed.

Okay, that clears things up as well.

exactly what I said. The point I was trying to make is that there is no reason to specially include any mention of conflict between the Bantu and the Egyptians in the TL because they were already there and thus included in the section detailing the conquest of the interior. Also, as mentioned in my previous message, the Bantu may not actually be there in this TL...since the peoples of the interior are Egyptianized to a large extent (exclusive of the San in the Kalahari, of course), they are better able to resist the encroachment of the Bantu, or the Bantu may have been assimilated into the Egyptian culture they found upon arriving.

alright, cool. But have you given any thought to a possible third revolt specifically in Ophir? The Egyptians would crush it of course, but having a threat appear in the far reaches of the Egyptian empire would be interesting indeed, especially in the region that produces most of Egypts wealth (and which probably has the second highest population of nemhu outside of Egypt proper) and which might feel just a tad resentful at being lumped together, representationally with the rest of the empire outside of Egypt....

Please note, I don't want to detract from your TL, I only wish to help make it richer by putting forward suggestions about the African section (since the rest of the world looks fine, except South America which hasn't been discovered...yet... )

One other suggestion I have is to have the Egyptians begin to exploit the Sahel. in OTL the Cushites and Nilo-Saharans used it as a corridor to go west (since the Sahel, being semi-arid and transitional between desert and forest is not as forbidding as the Saharan desert). With the Sahel, the Egyptians might expand their influence or trade westward towards Ghana and Bornu directly and avoid using the trans-Saharan trade routes (which mostly go to Roman territory anyway). You could even have some Egyptians settle in the area...

Excellent continuation by the way.

 

[robertp6165]

Geographic isolation partly explains both [the survival of the San and the survival of Native American cultures]. However, the eastern tribes were not mostly assimilated. They were mostly exterminated. As you yourself pointed out the horrible racism displayed by the Europeans and their descendent Americans segregated the Native Americans from their society. There was some assimilation, but mostly there was exploitation [we sign a nice fancy treaty with one hand and then take away everything with the other hand and meanwhile send your people into exile ensuring that a good percentage of them die along the way]. Certainly in the Caribbean where I live, there is narry a Native American (Taino or Carib) to be found, except in some very isolated communities in Guyana and Surinam and Dominica (for special reasons on that island). Reason: the Spaniards (and to a lesser extent the French, Dutch and British) mostly used them as slaves (til they all died), mistreat them and then introduced smallpox. The Native Americans who kept their culture by being in contact for the shortest time also happened to have been exposed to European racism for the shortest time as well (and luckily were able to survive contact until those racist views changed). Racist societies do not tend to integrate and assimilate different groups(witness South Africa and the American South pre-1960s).

I completely agree. But nevertheless, the main point I was trying to make is that assimiliation has occurred, even under these conditions, and the tribes with the longest exposure to the admittedly racist and genocidal European encroachment on their cultures are also the most assimilated (or at least the survivors are assimilated).

In OTL the Cushites are related to the Egyptians (so their culture was probably similar). The Nubians just retained their language. They wrote in Coptic script (another reason I confused Nubians for being in the Afroasiatic group) adopted from Egypt. Nubian must have been influenced by Coptic.

Actually they wrote in Egytian hieroglyphics in the early period, and Coptic (which is actually a script based on Egyptian Demotic script) at the later period. But your point is well taken...the Nubians/Kushites probably were better suited to Egyptianization than the San and other groups would have been. But that does not deny that the San and the other groups could have been Egyptianized over time.

And then what of the example of the African slaves in the Americas?

A prime example of assimilation, even if it was forced assimilation.

Another example which follows on your point of large populations assimilating small ones (so my British-Indian example was not good as you rightly pointed out) is the Turkic Bulgars who mostly assimilated into the culture and language of the Slavs they ruled. Also what of the vulgar Latin speaking Goths and so forth who basically took over the Western Roman Empire? They adopted Roman culture and language (well a debased form of it).

All true. Another example is the Iberians and Celts conquered by the Romans, who in a period of between 400 and 500 years became completely Romanized.

My point was not that Russia or Poland had a superior culture (I believe that neither culture was superior to the other), but that people tend to view their own cultures dearly and even under active programs to introduce another culture, they tend not to assimilate.

Almost certainly one reason the Poles (and Ukrainians, and Belarussians, etc) did not assimilate is because the Great Russians were trying to FORCE assimilation on them. So not only was there no incentive to assimilate because the Russian culture was not more advanced, but there was a disincentive because of the force issue (which would tend to make the people rally around their native culture). The same thing happened in Scotland, Ireland, and Wales, where concerted efforts were made by the English to eradicate the various Celtic cultures, but they survived (albeit somewhat changed) anyway.

I started out speaking of language groups...Egyptian tomb paintings are just that. Paintings. They do not write down what the Cushites spoke and what their original culture was like, only that they looked darker."

I concede that point. However, the archaeology of Nubia does indicate a different culture prior to the Egyptian New Kingdom period, when the Egyptians conquered and colonized all or portions of Nubia (c. 1900 BC to c. 1000 BC). The type of burials given their kings differed from that in Egypt, for example, the art was different, and it seems different gods were worshipped. Also, the Egyptian paintings indicate the style of dress worn in Nubia was very different than that worn in Egypt. So pretty obviously it was a different culture that was Egyptianized.

Well pick and date and run with it. Its your TL so you can do what you want within reason if the TL is faraway enough. Gonna have the Malagasy hit or miss Madagascar? I personally think it would be interesting if the Malagasy came and found Egyptians there......just imagine it... in 500AD on the peaceful west coast of Madagascar (what would the Egyptians call it?), the local Egyptians were surprised one early morn when boats appeared on their shores carrying people who were most strange indeed..not a word they said could be understood and their dress was most unusual.....eventually by 530AD when some amount of translation had been done, the Egyptians learned of a vast island archipelago to the east, beyond India with lush forests and fields of spices.... [or you could have the originally Malagasy fail in 500AD and then a new set try again by the the late 1200s...]

Well, the Malagasy actually migrated to Madagascar in waves, the last one sometime in the 15th Century. So perhaps some were already there when the Egyptians arrived, and were conquered by the Egyptians. Then, later on, other waves arrived and have to be dealt with. Might be interesting.

alright, cool. But have you given any thought to a possible third revolt specifically in Ophir? The Egyptians would crush it of course, but having a threat appear in the far reaches of the Egyptian empire would be interesting indeed, especially in the region that produces most of Egypts wealth (and which probably has the second highest population of nemhu outside of Egypt proper) and which might feel just a tad resentful at being lumped together, representationally with the rest of the empire outside of Egypt....

interesting idea...might be fun.

Please note, I don't want to detract from your TL, I only wish to help make it richer by putting forward suggestions about the African section (since the rest of the world looks fine, except South America which hasn't been discovered...yet... )

I understand, and appreciate all suggestions (yours and those made by others).

One other suggestion I have is to have the Egyptians begin to exploit the Sahel. in OTL the Cushites and Nilo-Saharans used it as a corridor to go west (since the Sahel, being semi-arid and transitional between desert and forest is not as forbidding as the Saharan desert). With the Sahel, the Egyptians might expand their influence or trade westward towards Ghana and Bornu directly and avoid using the trans-Saharan trade routes (which mostly go to Roman territory anyway). You could even have some Egyptians settle in the area...

well, I think that is how Egypt is probably doing whatever trading it does with Ghana and Bornu now. You are right that the trans-Sahara trade goes mostly to Rome.

Excellent continuation by the way.

Thank you.