Civilization Domination RP; OOC

[Bujahla]

PEOPLE, THERE ARE NO NATIONS, KINGDOMS, OR WHATNOT!

I'll ignore the fact that nations didn't arise until late in history in europe, kingdoms technically can exist at this time, though they would be small. Basically the king would only rule over a tribe or a bit more so they aren't really a king, but if you mean a kingdom as in a state ruled by a single figure head with absolute power, than those would be able to exist.
And if you are referring to my area, I'm only a proto-city but with influence over all the villages and such in Northern Lower Egypt (river delta area).

[Alouite]

Well technically a nation or kingdom doesn't mean a substantial amount of territory. Or technological advancement

Kingdoms and Nations are ideas, at the time only communities, pre-tribal communities, and early forms of unregulated and highly decentralized city-states existed.

[Transoxthraxia]

This is moving really fast... Anyone care to catch me up?

[G-Tech Corporation]

And then let's do some more math.

What is 15000*(1.00325^6000)?

I'll save you some trouble; it's 4.27*10^12, or 4,270,000,000,000.

That means, at your growth rate of "only" 0.325%, the population of only your segment of the world will be four trillion in 2000. Not billion, but trillion.

Actual humanity in this era grew at an average rate of 0.0002% annually.

That's exponential growth rate not average growth rate....

Population growth is always exponential. Unless you want to argue that you actually had a 0.325% growth rate in a time period that was more than a year, in which case you should have less people. Unless you'd care to explain what an "average growth rate" is...?

[Tribea]

PEOPLE, THERE ARE NO NATIONS, KINGDOMS, OR WHATNOT!

I'll ignore the fact that nations didn't arise until late in history in europe, kingdoms technically can exist at this time, though they would be small. Basically the king would only rule over a tribe or a bit more so they aren't really a king, but if you mean a kingdom as in a state ruled by a single figure head with absolute power, than those would be able to exist.
And if you are referring to my area, I'm only a proto-city but with influence over all the villages and such in Northern Lower Egypt (river delta area).

No.
You have influence on your city and city alone.

Also, i hereby form the Realism Agency of Civilization Domination, or RAGCD. I am the chairman, who shall be the leader, and Alouite is the first Agent.

[Al-Ahkri]

I'll ignore the fact that nations didn't arise until late in history in europe, kingdoms technically can exist at this time, though they would be small. Basically the king would only rule over a tribe or a bit more so they aren't really a king, but if you mean a kingdom as in a state ruled by a single figure head with absolute power, than those would be able to exist.
And if you are referring to my area, I'm only a proto-city but with influence over all the villages and such in Northern Lower Egypt (river delta area).

No.
You have influence on your city and city alone.

Also, i hereby form the Realism Agency of Civilization Domination, or RAGCD. I am the chairman, who shall be the leader, and Alouite is the first Agent.

So we are essentially rerunning human history; writing a personalized history book?

[Transoxthraxia]

I'll ignore the fact that nations didn't arise until late in history in europe, kingdoms technically can exist at this time, though they would be small. Basically the king would only rule over a tribe or a bit more so they aren't really a king, but if you mean a kingdom as in a state ruled by a single figure head with absolute power, than those would be able to exist.
And if you are referring to my area, I'm only a proto-city but with influence over all the villages and such in Northern Lower Egypt (river delta area).

No.
You have influence on your city and city alone.

Also, i hereby form the Realism Agency of Civilization Domination, or RAGCD. I am the chairman, who shall be the leader, and Alouite is the first Agent.

You're being unrealistic. I'm sorry, but you are. I'm a realist, and even I admit that you cannot assume that just because kingdoms greater an one hundred square kilometers occurred after 3,500 B.C.E that immediately that means that that is the exact cut-off point for when a kingdom can expand. Sure, it is true that one cannot expand too much, whatever was considered an "administration" at this time was extremely inefficient and primitive. That being said, there are no physical limiting factors for people to not expand. Expanding to a certain point is realistic, I think. Why wouldn't it be? You scream at people for not being realistic, but you give no reasons as to why they're not being unrealistic. Stop being a persecutive negative RPer, and actually provide valid reasons as to why you believe we can't expand to a certain point.

If Reatra actually lets this guy get away with things like this, consider me out of this RP.

[Alouite]

No.
You have influence on your city and city alone.

Also, i hereby form the Realism Agency of Civilization Domination, or RAGCD. I am the chairman, who shall be the leader, and Alouite is the first Agent.

So we are essentially rerunning human history; writing a personalized history book?

I would say its more like a personalized history book that (as time goes by) will grow further and further from out timeline creating an alternate history. Oh, and thanks for making me agent Tribea.

[Transoxthraxia]

So we are essentially rerunning human history; writing a personalized history book?

I would say its more like a personalized history book that (as time goes by) will grow further and further from out timeline creating an alternate history. Oh, and thanks for making me agent Tribea.

But why? What is your reasoning for not allowing expansion? Because it didn't happen historically?

[Marsisian]

Name of city: Hastings
Population: 5,500
Description: Clay or some stone and there is a shrine in the city about a cow god and some other gods.
Location: Modern location of Normandy
Religion: Polytheism
Government: Tribal Democracy
Leader: Chief Toram

[Alouite]

I would say its more like a personalized history book that (as time goes by) will grow further and further from out timeline creating an alternate history. Oh, and thanks for making me agent Tribea.

But why?

To make it realistic, look I see your point, and, to an extent, agree, I feel that by the time we get to nations much will be able to change at a rapid pace, but we can't set the human race thousands of years ahead technologically, not even in the social sense or it will cause us to get ahead of reality to the point that for realists, it will feel so impossible it wont be fun.

[Transoxthraxia]

But why?

To make it realistic, look I see your point, and, to an extent, agree, I feel that by the time we get to nations much will be able to change at a rapid pace, but we can't set the human race thousands of years ahead technologically, not even in the social sense or it will cause us to get ahead of reality to the point that for realists, it will feel so impossible it wont be fun.

To make it realistic

- Yeah, how is it unrealistic to expand five hundred years ahead of schedule?

but we can't set the human race thousands of years ahead technologically

- I never suggested this, if you paid attention. As I said earlier, and let me reiterate. While I think that we should be somewhat realistic, we shouldn't make this one of those hyper-realistic RPs, because it isn't designed to be one. Expanding five hundred years prior to when historical kingdoms actually did is not problematic in the least. In fact, it hardly changes anything in the long term.

[Alouite]

To make it realistic, look I see your point, and, to an extent, agree, I feel that by the time we get to nations much will be able to change at a rapid pace, but we can't set the human race thousands of years ahead technologically, not even in the social sense or it will cause us to get ahead of reality to the point that for realists, it will feel so impossible it wont be fun.

To make it realistic

- Yeah, how is it unrealistic to expand five hundred years ahead of schedule?

but we can't set the human race thousands of years ahead technologically

- I never suggested this, if you paid attention. As I said earlier, and let me reiterate. While I think that we should be somewhat realistic, we shouldn't make this one of those hyper-realistic RPs, because it isn't designed to be one. Expanding five hundred years prior to when historical kingdoms actually did is not problematic in the least. In fact, it hardly changes anything in the long term.

1) It's Five Hundred years unrealistic, that is the equivalent of (at the time) 10-15 generations of people, that is very ahead, think of if the soviet Union existed in 1500, not even it's tech but it just being there it would be out of place.

2)Okay

3) I see your points, just promise me our discussion wont get personal (I'm not accusing you, you haven't done it yet, I just wanna make sure we both wont go to far) I promise I wont.

[Transoxthraxia]

- Yeah, how is it unrealistic to expand five hundred years ahead of schedule?

- I never suggested this, if you paid attention. As I said earlier, and let me reiterate. While I think that we should be somewhat realistic, we shouldn't make this one of those hyper-realistic RPs, because it isn't designed to be one. Expanding five hundred years prior to when historical kingdoms actually did is not problematic in the least. In fact, it hardly changes anything in the long term.

1) It's Five Hundred years unrealistic, that is the equivalent of (at the time) 10-15 generations of people, that is very ahead, think of if the soviet Union existed in 1500, not even it's tech but it just being there it would be out of place.

2)Okay

3) I see your points, just promise me our discussion wont get personal (I'm not accusing you, you haven't done it yet, I just wanna make sure we both wont go to far) I promise I wont.

1) The fact that you are comparing this to the Soviet Union is surely a jest. The reason why the world has changed so rapidly in the past thousand years is because the technology has allowed it. Empires rise and fall, and especially in the past, we see empires lasting much longer than they do in the modern age. Why is that? Well, for example, in Roman Times, there was little or no concept of nationalism. That's partially why so many peoples became Romanised, they had no sense of their own culture beyond it's language. No one was proud to be a Gaul, a Celtiberian, a Briton. The reason Austria, during it's years of existence (up to the First World War), fared so poorly militarily, and eventually was on the losing side of the Treaty of Versailles, was because the Austrian Empire comprised of only a few actual Austrians. All their soldiers, officers, subjects, were Slavs, Hungarians, etcetera. They weren't willing to fight for a regime that wasn't theirs. To use your example of the Soviet Union, the USSR was an empire based solely on newly developed social ideas that occurred less than a century before the revolution (Compared to the slow development of ideas in the stone and old bronze ages). What I'm saying is that things happen in a much quicker timeframe nowadays due to technology, which includes the rise and fall of empires. So actually, five hundred years in the early bronze age is more or less equivalent to fifty years in the modern age.

I don't usually take arguments over the internet personally, if I did, I would have many enemies.

[Alouite]

1) It's Five Hundred years unrealistic, that is the equivalent of (at the time) 10-15 generations of people, that is very ahead, think of if the soviet Union existed in 1500, not even it's tech but it just being there it would be out of place.

2)Okay

3) I see your points, just promise me our discussion wont get personal (I'm not accusing you, you haven't done it yet, I just wanna make sure we both wont go to far) I promise I wont.

1) The fact that you are comparing this to the Soviet Union is surely a jest. The reason why the world has changed so rapidly in the past thousand years is because the technology has allowed it. Empires rise and fall, and especially in the past, we see empires lasting much longer than they do in the modern age. Why is that? Well, for example, in Roman Times, there was little or no concept of nationalism. That's partially why so many peoples became Romanised, they had no sense of their own culture beyond it's language. No one was proud to be a Gaul, a Celtiberian, a Briton. The reason Austria, during it's years of existence (up to the First World War), fared so poorly militarily, and eventually was on the losing side of the Treaty of Versailles, was because the Austrian Empire comprised of only a few actual Austrians. All their soldiers, officers, subjects, were Slavs, Hungarians, etcetera. They weren't willing to fight for a regime that wasn't theirs. To use your example of the Soviet Union, the USSR was an empire based solely on newly developed social ideas that occurred less than a century before the revolution (Compared to the slow development of ideas in the stone and old bronze ages). What I'm saying is that things happen in a much quicker timeframe nowadays due to technology, which includes the rise and fall of empires. So actually, five hundred years in the early bronze age is more or less equivalent to fifty years in the modern age.

I don't usually take arguments over the internet personally, if I did, I would have many enemies.

Okay, I kinda see your point, but you won't go too far will ya?

[Transoxthraxia]

1) The fact that you are comparing this to the Soviet Union is surely a jest. The reason why the world has changed so rapidly in the past thousand years is because the technology has allowed it. Empires rise and fall, and especially in the past, we see empires lasting much longer than they do in the modern age. Why is that? Well, for example, in Roman Times, there was little or no concept of nationalism. That's partially why so many peoples became Romanised, they had no sense of their own culture beyond it's language. No one was proud to be a Gaul, a Celtiberian, a Briton. The reason Austria, during it's years of existence (up to the First World War), fared so poorly militarily, and eventually was on the losing side of the Treaty of Versailles, was because the Austrian Empire comprised of only a few actual Austrians. All their soldiers, officers, subjects, were Slavs, Hungarians, etcetera. They weren't willing to fight for a regime that wasn't theirs. To use your example of the Soviet Union, the USSR was an empire based solely on newly developed social ideas that occurred less than a century before the revolution (Compared to the slow development of ideas in the stone and old bronze ages). What I'm saying is that things happen in a much quicker timeframe nowadays due to technology, which includes the rise and fall of empires. So actually, five hundred years in the early bronze age is more or less equivalent to fifty years in the modern age.

I don't usually take arguments over the internet personally, if I did, I would have many enemies.

Okay, I kinda see your point, but you won't go too far will ya?

Wow, I actually won an argument on the internet. Yay me. And yes, I can assure you I will remain in the boundaries of realism.

[Alouite]

Okay, I kinda see your point, but you won't go too far will ya?

Wow, I actually won an argument on the internet. Yay me. And yes, I can assure you I will remain in the boundaries of realism.

Im tired, I've already had my internet victory, I trust you will not go too far go ahead.

[Tribea]

No.
You have influence on your city and city alone.

Also, i hereby form the Realism Agency of Civilization Domination, or RAGCD. I am the chairman, who shall be the leader, and Alouite is the first Agent.

So we are essentially rerunning human history; writing a personalized history book?

It was a joke.
Also, we are a few hundren years off from nations.
I dont care if you do it within 50 years, or for wheel or writing, max is OP's opinion, as i have no idea when they were made.

[Al-Ahkri]

Well empires now make sense if you think about it. Larger cities would be considerably stronger than smaller tribes (2000 people: 300). They would be able to hold much influence over the smaller tribes due to them outnumbering them. You wouldn't see Virginia (medium state in the US for all those who don't live in ze US or don't know much about it) fight the rest of the US. It would give in and do what the larger group wants. Now would be the almost perfect time for a hegemonic empire

[Tribea]

Well empires now make sense if you think about it. Larger cities would be considerably stronger than smaller tribes (2000 people: 300). They would be able to hold much influence over the smaller tribes due to them outnumbering them. You wouldn't see Virginia (medium state in the US for all those who don't live in ze US or don't know much about it) fight the rest of the US. It would give in and do what the larger group wants. Now would be the almost perfect time for a hegemonic empire

Lets set a limit now, ok, ti avoid more arguments. Any ideas?
Id say a total of the size of Half of Estonia. You?

[Alouite]

Well empires now make sense if you think about it. Larger cities would be considerably stronger than smaller tribes (2000 people: 300). They would be able to hold much influence over the smaller tribes due to them outnumbering them. You wouldn't see Virginia (medium state in the US for all those who don't live in ze US or don't know much about it) fight the rest of the US. It would give in and do what the larger group wants. Now would be the almost perfect time for a hegemonic empire

or more of a pre-hegemonic empire ruled though population strength and vassal like ties to the smaller subject tribes this is what lead to true city-states, nations, and eventually empires.
@ Tribea I agree.

[Verdum]

I'm waiting for someone to be lazy and just post 'Shit happened' as their overview for the time period.

[Al-Ahkri]

I'm waiting for someone to be lazy and just post 'Shit happened' as their overview for the time period.

[Bujahla]

No.
You have influence on your city and city alone.

Also, i hereby form the Realism Agency of Civilization Domination, or RAGCD. I am the chairman, who shall be the leader, and Alouite is the first Agent.

You're being unrealistic. I'm sorry, but you are. I'm a realist, and even I admit that you cannot assume that just because kingdoms greater an one hundred square kilometers occurred after 3,500 B.C.E that immediately that means that that is the exact cut-off point for when a kingdom can expand. Sure, it is true that one cannot expand too much, whatever was considered an "administration" at this time was extremely inefficient and primitive. That being said, there are no physical limiting factors for people to not expand. Expanding to a certain point is realistic, I think. Why wouldn't it be? You scream at people for not being realistic, but you give no reasons as to why they're not being unrealistic. Stop being a persecutive negative RPer, and actually provide valid reasons as to why you believe we can't expand to a certain point.

If Reatra actually lets this guy get away with things like this, consider me out of this RP.

Wait, who are you "out of this RP" at? Me or the dude in the Yucatan?
If you are upset by my apparent lack of realism, it's illogical to assume you can't have influence on other people. Major proto-city with much larger population than any of its surrounding villages? Yup. Totally not gonna have ANY influence on them what so ever. (That's sarcasm). I'm basing my people of a real life group, the Badari who actually did influence most of the river delta region of Egypt due to massive trade. They didn't control them and nothing they did in their city state affected them, but because they were so big, their culture affected them to the point where they were called "a people." It's not like I rule them, like I'm a kingdom. It's that they are the same people as mine are (culturally) and that they identify as Kismasic even if they aren't from the city-state.

That's exponential growth rate not average growth rate....

Population growth is always exponential. Unless you want to argue that you actually had a 0.325% growth rate in a time period that was more than a year, in which case you should have less people. Unless you'd care to explain what an "average growth rate" is...?

Woops. I meant on average my population grew at that rate. I suppose if it's done exponentially its .10745151% growth but that's quite small. If you are claiming that it's unrealistic for me to have a proto-city where a IRL proto-city formed with a larger population and that having such a small growth is unrealistic, then I question what realistic is to you. That's literally me having 2 babies in 6000 BCE. Also, you can't assume beyond the range of the given model as that is unreliable and that the growth rate was given for this model, thus it can't hold true for a longer period of time. By the way, that would put my population at 1.2billion modern day time, not some 4 trillion or whatever. I believe your model is mistaken. Also, the average rate for humanity takes in the amount of people who were nomadic and those in places like Europe or Oceania which weren't as advanced as Mesopotamia and Egypt, the first places were state-societies arose due to a much larger population than the rest of the world's regions in comparison.

[Marsisian]

Anybody gonna look at my APP?