What Happened to Fertile Lands of EB Time?

[Subotan]

The Soviets didn't do the region any favors, either . . .

Everything else I'd have said was covered earlier. I have this love of Central Asia and everytime someone disparages it I launch into this grand speech about the constant warfare and Mongol/Turkic/etc invasions and the Great Game and all that good stuff.

Wasn't it Khrushchev who wanted to plant maize in Kazakhstan, and it turned out to be the worst crop imaginable, and the USSR went from being an exporter to an importer of food?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Generally important crops/livestcok spell doom for an eco-system. This is true with the hardy East-European wheat that was planted in the Great Plains in America, it worked great for about one hundred years until the dust storms of mid-last century.

[-Praetor-]

As a child, I had thought that the desertification of North Africa was thanks to the romans, that hunted and catched all the lions and predators in the area. As a result, herbivores proliferated without any natural control, and went on a rampage eating all the green in the area. The resulting lack of vegetation only eased the wind erosion...

I don't know if that theory stands, though, but it's a nice story nonetheless.

[Cyclops]

In Australia we've experienced some changes in soil fertility in the 200+ years since Europeans invaded. The trends seem to be deforestation, climate fluctuation and salination.

We have an educated scientific culture and we have measured how tree-cutting leads directly to poorer soils, but the logging industry is so powerful they literally buy governments (eg Tasmanian State Governments) and push on regardless. I believe the West Australian state government had a policy to clear a million acres a year to put the "wheat belt" under cultivation, a truly disasterous (although well meant) policy.

Part of the problem is industrial scale intervention: wherever we irrigate on a big scale we get major salination problems (although the exact mechanism is debated, the result is clear). We also have water disputes where states up-river have built rice and cotton industries (great money spinners) in semi-arid regions (d'oh): states down stream are literally drying off the map (eg South Australia).

I imagine the middle east has experienced all these trends in spades.

I doubt that Middle Eastern desertification is due to a single factor (Genghis' goat policy or whatever), but in some ways they have been victims of their own success. The "Fertile Crescent" has supported millions of people from the dawn of agriculture. For much of its history it was the most civilised region on the planet, with sophisticated urban cultures shedding light on us all. I think they used up their environmental bikkies, albeit slower than my country is doing on our rather fragile soils.

Irrigation is a big deal in Mesopotamia. There's a theory civilization formed under the impetus of hydraulic engneering, the need to organise enough bodies to dig enough channels to grow crops in a rainless plain. So long as the people were in charge of their own destinies they looked after their water.

I guess the fragmentation of Islam under the Turkic and Mongol invasions didn't help keep up the infrastructure. I understand there are some quite succesful cultivation programs (eg in Israel and the Emirates) where there's expertise, capital and central authority to run modern industrial farms. Whether these projects are sustainable over centuries is another matter: maybe its not really about water, and the soils are spent .

Of course if I was to put up the "one guy" that might have made a difference (and frankly thats what I really want to do, even though I know its wrong), I'll blame Alexander. The Achaemenid love of gardens and qanats would surely have led to a greener future than the imperialist Macos with their pyromaniac drinking parties.

Also I want to blame Cromwell or Longstreet, somehow they're involved.

[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.

[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

[Nirvanish]

Wasn't it Khrushchev who wanted to plant maize in Kazakhstan, and it turned out to be the worst crop imaginable, and the USSR went from being an exporter to an importer of food?

Yes this would be Khrushchev's idea of using the Aral Sea to irrigate the surrounding regions of the Soviet Union so that they could produce corn. If you take a look at modern pictures of the Aral Sea, 1, 2, 3, you can tell exactly how that turned out.

It is kind of interesting that this topic turned up on here, I received a book for Christmas which deals with this subject. Collapse by Jared Diamond (His previous book, Guns, Germs, and Steel, is far more well known.) basically points out examples of how the misuse of many different societies' environments eventually lead to their own demise. From what I have read so far, I do not believe there will be any examples from the EB world but many of you may still find it an interesting read.

[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.

[Ibrahim]

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.

I'm not a fanboy. Its just that that is still a lot more land, at a similar rate-I'm well aware of the exaustion of of the two empires, especially Persia.

yes though I guess you do have a point though-the two empires were indeed tired after killing each other. that said, it wasn't any easier for the Arabs, especially with persia. If what accounts say is true, the persians actually put up quite a fight, and did possess some will to go on (though apperently, they lost hope in the king, especially after Nihavand).

[MarcusAureliusAntoninus]

Bad language, off topic, and intractable arguments. Time to close.