What Happened to Fertile Lands of EB Time?

[Shatov]

Noticed something when playing as Bactria; a lot of my provinces had super-fertile land. While I expected this in Sind, and maybe near the Ox and other rivers, but generally when I think about modern Uzbekistan or Afganistan I don't think about lush, super-productive farms. Same goes for Sicily, Iraq, Egypt and eastern Spain.

Now, what all these areas have in common is that all these areas have supported agricultural populations for 4000+ years, while the two most fertile areas of the world (the Ukraine and the Mid West) supported pastoralists or primitive farmer populations until about 200 years ago.

I'm guessing this isn't a coincidence. Does supporting large agricultural populations over the long run ruin the fertility of a land, possibly the entire ecosystem?

[artavazd]

Noticed something when playing as Bactria; a lot of my provinces had super-fertile land. While I expected this in Sind, and maybe near the Ox and other rivers, but generally when I think about modern Uzbekistan or Afganistan I don't think about lush, super-productive farms. Same goes for Sicily, Iraq, Egypt and eastern Spain.

Now, what all these areas have in common is that all these areas have supported agricultural populations for 4000+ years, while the two most fertile areas of the world (the Ukraine and the Mid West) supported pastoralists or primitive farmer populations until about 200 years ago.

I'm guessing this isn't a coincidence. Does supporting large agricultural populations over the long run ruin the fertility of a land, possibly the entire ecosystem?

No. The paths of rivers have shifted. Thus making a once fertile region into a barren land.

[Shatov]

Rivers changing patterns would account for one area becoming more fertile than another, rather than all of the Middle East going from Caladan to Arrakis. Rivers changing courses wouldn't explain why the grain producing regions of the Roman Empire (Egypt, Iraq) now have to import huge amounts of food. This would seem to indicate comparative decline of the region rather than shifting areas of grain production due to changes in a river's course.

[Barry Soteiro]

Muslim Conquest. Screwed pretty much everything it touched.

[Shatov]

Muslim Conquest. Screwed pretty much everything it touched.

That's seemingly the one thing all these areas have in common other than their long history of cultivation. Somehow I doubt that repeating the shahadah by itself turns lands into desert,though.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Muslim Conquest. Screwed pretty much everything it touched.

You better back that up, or I am afraid all hell is gonna break loose here.

[KozaK13]

Muslim Conquest. Screwed pretty much everything it touched.

Read up abit on what the islamic world introduced to us eg. proto-capitalism, irrigation, many crops such as citrus fruits to us and inspired the guitar
Not to mention thier expansion of industrialisation in the caliphate like using water mills for factories, tidal power, hydro power and wind power albeit in a more primitibe form. Basically they replaced a stale old christian empire and persian empire with a vibrant, innovative islamic one.


Plus Egypt and iraq import so much as the population is too large for the countries to support themselves agriculturally, in modern times, plus evidence points to the kingdoms of egypt collapsing due to the nile drying up and changing course occaisionally, and i think the same major event lead to the fall of i think the assyrian or akkadian empire around the euphrates and tigris...
An ancient example would be Rome using north africa as its grain basket becuase italy couldn't support its population on its own.

[Shatov]

I'd be surprised if the Rashidun or Ummayad Caliphates introduced irrigation or remarkably innovative agricultural techniques to the Mid-East; if anything the stability after five hundred years of constant Roman-Persian warfare and the end of the Justinian Plague had more of an impact on economic growth and innovation.

[Watchman]

A culprit commonly pointed at is the Mongols, who apparently managed to do something unusual and cause long-term damage to regional demographics by wiping out much of the hydraulic engineer corps that used to maintain the extensive irrigation systems much of the agriculture in the Asian regions concerned relied heavily on. One Tamerlane a century or two later did a fine job wrecking what was left...

[Codyos Vladimiros]

Muslim Conquest. Screwed pretty much everything it touched.

Right idea, wrong religion. It was the MONGOLS who screwed pretty much everything--in fact they destroyed a lot of irrigation structures, on top the damage done in a few Abbassid Civil wars, IIRC.

[NeoSpartan]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oVh_eZkiTAI

---Now... for some reason I get the feel that too much blame is being put on the Mongols. Just a feeling I am getting..

True that the major irrigation systems fell into disrepair in Iraq (the general area between Baghdad and Basra) after 1258 (?). But then again, after that Iraq was constantly fought over 'till the Ottomans consolidated it to their own. And it wasn't until the late 19th Century that irrigation was being tended to again.

As for Egypt, a whole lot of people are living on top of fertile ground. Funny thing, after the Dam was constructed a lot of the land expected to be used for agriculture was taken up by people to live in.

[Ibrahim]

Muslim Conquest. Screwed pretty much everything it touched.

first off, all that the others said wers correct. we muslims tended to irrigation, did in fact introduce capitalism (a version not too different from what is in europe today-rich give lots of money to the poor), and manage to maintain that system for centuries on end. We also invented a proto 3-meals a day concept (some Arab living in spain). we wrote beautiful poetry (even before Islam), transfered ancient knowlege to europeans from main sources, made androids, wrote sociology books (Ibn Khaldun), and put Alexander the great to shame....so I'd shut my mouth up if I were you..

Its also worth pointing out that the Mongol conquests did most of the damage, as they distroyed the irrigation, kiilled technicians, and threw entire volumes/books on agriculture into the rivers. then the areas fell into a period of anarchy, during which the irrigation systems were left in desrepair, as no one was able to unify and cooperate on the reconstruction. the ottomans didn't do too well, mostly because they were focused on Europe (that said, the area did remain somewhat prosperous enough till the 20th century).

@lobf: the Mongols do represent a religious movement/upheaval (sort of). they were known to play religions against one another, and often used their conquests to justify that the judeo-christian/ Muslim god was either non-existant, or that the losers deserved "divine wrath" (toppling the Khalifah, wiping out those eastern europeans, etc). Even Tamerlane, a muslim, attacked other muslims, saying they deserved divine retribution by himself. If you find a good book on the sack of baghdad, you'll see a gruesome example being made of the khalifah...not a pretty thing.

they also killed everybody save artists (for buildings), scribes, and siege engineers. they did in fact kill all other technicians (the ones for agriculture included). It was Mongol Policy to do that, so as to terrify all neighbors into submission, which backfired at the battle of 3ain jallut in 1260-something.

second, here's is my message to you Barry soteiro : *throws the rigid digit salute*. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flipping_the_bird

[Mooks]

and put Alexander the great to shame....so I'd shut my mouth up if I were you..

Alexander the Great conquered the whole persian empire. The muslims coming out of arabia conquered the Persia and Byzantine empires (though slower for byzantine) after they had just got done with a serios war and were both depleted of manpower,capital, and will. Stop being a fanboy.

[MarcusAureliusAntoninus]

The apparent fertility seen in EB also seems to be somewhat exagerated and shouldn't be taken as 100% historical fact based on appearance.

[keravnos]

Noticed something when playing as Bactria; a lot of my provinces had super-fertile land. While I expected this in Sind, and maybe near the Ox and other rivers, but generally when I think about modern Uzbekistan or Afganistan I don't think about lush, super-productive farms. Same goes for Sicily, Iraq, Egypt and eastern Spain.

Now, what all these areas have in common is that all these areas have supported agricultural populations for 4000+ years, while the two most fertile areas of the world (the Ukraine and the Mid West) supported pastoralists or primitive farmer populations until about 200 years ago.

I'm guessing this isn't a coincidence. Does supporting large agricultural populations over the long run ruin the fertility of a land, possibly the entire ecosystem?

Bactria was fabled for its "1000 gilded cities". A map of the excavations of the area I have seen, tells of cities and Hellenistic colonies built almost exclusively on river sides and when possible on more than one... It was VERY productive. If you like lemons and oranges, it is here they came from. Also, it is noted that a lot of Greeks went over and settled there, as the climate was almost exactly as it was in Greece.

Sicily was the bread and basket of the Roman empire, much prior than N. Africa and Egypt assumed that role. A very rich and productive region.

Iraq, due to the grand engineering works, it truely was one of the most productive regions of the ancient world, so far as agriculture was concerned. All that came to an end when the Mongolians razed and burned Baghdad in the 12th century. They destroyed those engineering works utterly and ever since then, the most productive farmland of the world is underutilised.

Eastern Spain, I don't know. Others could speak about it. What we know of the Greek colonies in the region, Hemeroskopeion (that was its name in 272 BCE, NOT Arse), Kallipolis (Barcelona) and Emprorion (Ampurias) is that they were presumed to have a small but fruitful food cultivation zone around them -so was speculated, according to other colonies we know of.

[lobf]

Muslim Conquest. Screwed pretty much everything it touched.

You're a <expletive deleted> moron.

No. The paths of rivers have shifted. Thus making a once fertile region into a barren land.

I'd love to discover where the Tigris and Euphrates used to run through. Please, enlighten me.

Right idea, wrong religion. It was the MONGOLS who screwed pretty much everything--in fact they destroyed a lot of irrigation structures, on top the damage done in a few Abbassid Civil wars, IIRC.

The Mongols are a religion?

First off, can I get sources for these Mongols destroying the infrastructure they would have to rely on to successfully subjugate anyplace?

Uh, it's nice, but how's it relate to much anything.
Why ? They pretty much nuked the Khwaramzian kingdom (which covered much of Central Asia) and did more or less the same to Mesopotamia, and probably much of the region inbetween while they were at it. Did a fine job killing the know-how to build and maintain the irrigation systems on the side AFAIK, as insofar as the Mongols were concerned the hydraulic engineers didn't rank among those useful people that were spared when a city was razed...

Previous conquerors in the area hadn't been quite so thorough and systematical about making object lessons, far as I'm aware of.
Yeah, wot a coincidence there.

Again, seems counter-intuitive. Can you back up your claims with sources? Specifically that the mongols targeted hydraulic engineers. While you're at it, prove to me that the Mongol-hydraulic engineer-ocaust specifically led to desertification and/or the more-or-less complete elimination of this knowledge for (?) years.

Siltification + desertification.

Siltification = making salty. Basically when you irrigate for a long time trace amounts of salt build up as water evaporates and the soil becomes more salty. Plants don't like salt. This advances desertification. Most of the middle east was heavily irrigated for thousands of years. Lots of salt built up. Ta da.

Exactly. You racist <expletive deleted>. Quisque est barbarus alio. Or however you spell it.