New Civilizations (2nd Era, OOC, Always Open )

[G-Tech Corporation]

Plzen put in several days of research on our current figures; I’m quite happy trusting her methodologies over those of Reatra.

Reatra's figures ought to be considered anyways. They seem very detailed to me.

Plzen considered the HYDE figures when she was putting together the dataset we are using. Using only the HYDE figures, as Reatra would like, would only lead to a less accurate and more prejudiced set of numbers. I can’t see any advantage to that.

[Reatra]

Alright, but Reatra seems to have done his research. Are you considering using at least his information on climate or having him determine the environmental conditions of various parts of the world when we need that type of information?

Plzen put in several days of research on our current figures; I’m quite happy trusting her methodologies over those of Reatra.

Oh was I inactive for that? where is that?

[UniversalCommons]

Rhinoceros hide was used extensively in China for armor. The best hide armor combined rhinoceros and wild buffalo hide. it was supposed to be as good as steel armor. They were hunted to extinction for their hides and horns in China.

[Orostan]

Rhinoceros hide was used extensively in China for armor. The best hide armor combined rhinoceros and wild buffalo hide. it was supposed to be as good as steel armor. They were hunted to extinction for their hides and horns in China.

I think I might farm buffalo and rhinoceros for that reason, or at least limit the hunting to something sustainable.

I don’t know if it’s even possible to make rhinoceros a livestock animal.

[Reatra]

Rhinoceros hide was used extensively in China for armor. The best hide armor combined rhinoceros and wild buffalo hide. it was supposed to be as good as steel armor. They were hunted to extinction for their hides and horns in China.

I think I might farm buffalo and rhinoceros for that reason, or at least limit the hunting to something sustainable.

I don’t know if it’s even possible to make rhinoceros a livestock animal.

Considering the last native population went extinct in the 20th century, and the earliest evidence of captive rhinos is from the Common Era... I think you really don't need to worry about overhunting lol...

[Plzen]

The primary reason why I didn't use the HYDE data is because it is not really consistent. If you dive into the data you can pretty clearly tell that it's a result of stitching together different methodologies and there are some fairly obvious holes in the data (HYDE 3.2 considers the Danish Capital Region a developed urban area in 3000 BC because there is no data on how the Danish population is distributed throughout the country, so the dataset just put the entire country's population in Copenhagen).

Since I needed data that would allow fairly detailed country-to-country comparisons especially in Europe where there were four separate author states, I had to project from other data sources, none of which went as far back as 3000 BC. The consensus in later research seems to be that the proportion of world population represented by the New World did significantly decline in the 3000 BC - 1 AD period, so Reatra might kind of have a point here.

If I had time what I would have done is differentiate the assumed rate of growth by HYDE 3.2 superregion in order to have that relative intra-regional consistency of later population data while also retaining the inter-regional population balance of the HYDE 3.2 dataset, but I didn't and still don't have the motivation to make an effort like that.

In the end, there is enough uncertainty in how the world population was distributed in 3000 BC that any proposal that we float here can vary significantly while remaining within the realm of plausibility and are essentially arbitrary guesses. I pushed my proposals as hard as I did because, arbitrary or not, accurate or not, this RP does need an agreed-upon and global population standard that is both intra-regionally and inter-regionally consistent and frankly for all that Reatra's research might be more thorough than mine, he hasn't come up with one.

[Reatra]

The primary reason why I didn't use the HYDE data is because it is not really consistent. If you dive into the data you can pretty clearly tell that it's a result of stitching together different methodologies and there are some fairly obvious holes in the data (HYDE 3.2 considers the Danish Capital Region a developed urban area in 3000 BC because there is no data on how the Danish population is distributed throughout the country, so the dataset just put the entire country's population in Copenhagen).

Since I needed data that would allow fairly detailed country-to-country comparisons especially in Europe where there were four separate author states, I had to project from other data sources, none of which went as far back as 3000 BC. The consensus in later research seems to be that the proportion of world population represented by the New World did significantly decline in the 3000 BC - 1 AD period, so Reatra might kind of have a point here.

If I had time what I would have done is differentiate the assumed rate of growth by HYDE 3.2 superregion in order to have that relative intra-regional consistency of later population data while also retaining the inter-regional population balance of the HYDE 3.2 dataset, but I didn't and still don't have the motivation to make an effort like that.

In the end, there is enough uncertainty in how the world population was distributed in 3000 BC that any proposal that we float here can vary significantly while remaining within the realm of plausibility and are essentially arbitrary guesses. I pushed my proposals as hard as I did because, arbitrary or not, accurate or not, this RP does need an agreed-upon and global population standard that is both intra-regionally and inter-regionally consistent and frankly for all that Reatra's research might be more thorough than mine, he hasn't come up with one.

hella, I gotchu, I just don't remember the actual data, must have been the period i was inactive or something idk.

And yeah, intra-country data is difficult, although I haven't been using the population density maps mostly for that reason.

I added together the American countries' estimates and got ~9.7 million out of a global population of ~44.5 million, so it's still technically less percent of world population than it is percent of world land area, so Afro-Eurasia is definitely pulling ahead by 3000 BCE, but it shouldn't really accelerate that much until the next millenium or so. Which, uh, frankly all of this doesn't have much bearing on the roleplay... a country with a tenth of a million people max, which is probably every Author state except Sumer atm, is not gonna be projecting power over seas any time in the next century lmfao.



Either way, I am mostly focusing on finding accurate information for Western North American cultures and geography and climate in this era, and mostly just commenting on population in Author states if something feels especially egregious.

[G-Tech Corporation]

The primary reason why I didn't use the HYDE data is because it is not really consistent. If you dive into the data you can pretty clearly tell that it's a result of stitching together different methodologies and there are some fairly obvious holes in the data (HYDE 3.2 considers the Danish Capital Region a developed urban area in 3000 BC because there is no data on how the Danish population is distributed throughout the country, so the dataset just put the entire country's population in Copenhagen).

Since I needed data that would allow fairly detailed country-to-country comparisons especially in Europe where there were four separate author states, I had to project from other data sources, none of which went as far back as 3000 BC. The consensus in later research seems to be that the proportion of world population represented by the New World did significantly decline in the 3000 BC - 1 AD period, so Reatra might kind of have a point here.

If I had time what I would have done is differentiate the assumed rate of growth by HYDE 3.2 superregion in order to have that relative intra-regional consistency of later population data while also retaining the inter-regional population balance of the HYDE 3.2 dataset, but I didn't and still don't have the motivation to make an effort like that.

In the end, there is enough uncertainty in how the world population was distributed in 3000 BC that any proposal that we float here can vary significantly while remaining within the realm of plausibility and are essentially arbitrary guesses. I pushed my proposals as hard as I did because, arbitrary or not, accurate or not, this RP does need an agreed-upon and global population standard that is both intra-regionally and inter-regionally consistent and frankly for all that Reatra's research might be more thorough than mine, he hasn't come up with one.

hella, I gotchu, I just don't remember the actual data, must have been the period i was inactive or something idk.

And yeah, intra-country data is difficult, although I haven't been using the population density maps mostly for that reason.

I added together the American countries' estimates and got ~9.7 million out of a global population of ~44.5 million, so it's still technically less percent of world population than it is percent of world land area, so Afro-Eurasia is definitely pulling ahead by 3000 BCE, but it shouldn't really accelerate that much until the next millenium or so. Which, uh, frankly all of this doesn't have much bearing on the roleplay... a country with a tenth of a million people max, which is probably every Author state except Sumer atm, is not gonna be projecting power over seas any time in the next century lmfao.



Either way, I am mostly focusing on finding accurate information for Western North American cultures and geography and climate in this era, and mostly just commenting on population in Author states if something feels especially egregious.

Of course, which, it should be remembered that an accounting based on pure land area is wildly off-base and unreliable. Afro-Eurasian populations have existed, at this point, for roughly forty millennia. North American populations, perhaps fourteen, even merely ten. Given we don’t posit that either region was approaching anywhere near carrying capacity for pre-Neolithic populaces, American populaces will be axiomatically minute compared to their cousins.

[Reatra]

hella, I gotchu, I just don't remember the actual data, must have been the period i was inactive or something idk.

And yeah, intra-country data is difficult, although I haven't been using the population density maps mostly for that reason.

I added together the American countries' estimates and got ~9.7 million out of a global population of ~44.5 million, so it's still technically less percent of world population than it is percent of world land area, so Afro-Eurasia is definitely pulling ahead by 3000 BCE, but it shouldn't really accelerate that much until the next millenium or so. Which, uh, frankly all of this doesn't have much bearing on the roleplay... a country with a tenth of a million people max, which is probably every Author state except Sumer atm, is not gonna be projecting power over seas any time in the next century lmfao.



Either way, I am mostly focusing on finding accurate information for Western North American cultures and geography and climate in this era, and mostly just commenting on population in Author states if something feels especially egregious.

Of course, which, it should be remembered that an accounting based on pure land area is wildly off-base and unreliable. Afro-Eurasian populations have existed, at this point, for roughly forty millennia. North American populations, perhaps fourteen, even merely ten. Given we don’t posit that either region was approaching anywhere near carrying capacity for pre-Neolithic populaces, American populaces will be axiomatically minute compared to their cousins.

Umm... yeah see that isn't how human population tend to work..? Unless I'm misunderstanding, but populations in a "virgin" (comparatively) land tend to explode and then plateau pretty quick, and since there's archaeological evidence for the continent being anything but empty. And even if there wasn't that evidence, even at the average long-term Holocene population growth rate for both agriculturalists and hunter-gatherers of about 0.04-0.05%, those initial 5,000 Bering Strait crossers, after about 14,000-15,000 years that equals the 9,000,000 or so people that is estimated.

Now that said, you're right in that the Old World has more of the dense river valley civilizations than the New, which is why it makes sense that the population in the Old World is larger than that in the Americas.

But again, maybe I'm not understanding your point, but the "age of populations" doesn't seem to have much bearing here, considering they're essentially all old enough to thoroughly populate their homelands. In the year 1500 American populations were about 20,000 years old, African populations were 100,000, and Eurasian about 60,000-50,000. Yet the Americas in 1500 had a bit less than a quarter of the world population.


Basically, with respect, I don't understand your argument, it seems like a very strange one to make, I won't lie!

EDIT: I should summarize, basically I feel that 5000 people who encounter a people-less continent and start changing the environment to fit their needs are probably gonna be expanding somewhat faster (and over the course of 14,000 years, "somewhat faster" almost certainly means "also reaches the plateau point that the Old World already reached") than people who already did that 40,000 years ago...

... and considering even Plzen stated that many estimates have the overall proportion of American-Old World populations declining in the next few millennia, I don't see how that holds up

[G-Tech Corporation]

Umm... yeah see that isn't how human population tend to work..? Unless I'm misunderstanding, but populations in a "virgin" (comparatively) land tend to explode and then plateau pretty quick, and since there's archaeological evidence for the continent being anything but empty. And even if there wasn't that evidence, even at the average long-term Holocene population growth rate for both agriculturalists and hunter-gatherers of about 0.04-0.05%, those initial 5,000 Bering Strait crossers, after about 14,000-15,000 years that equals the 9,000,000 or so people that is estimated.

Actually, it is exactly how population growth tends to work, using modern fitness-spatial modeling. Again, as I've asserted a half dozen times but you seem content to ignore, you really need to do some more homework. Models from the 1970s that assume ease of migration and near-perfect distribution of populations to viable sites and thus, population explosion in virgin territories, are really quite passe. Not to mention numerically infeasible when matched against known population trends in well studied paleocultures like Mesopotamia, the Indus Valley, and Italy, to name a few. If we held with the assumptions of your 0.04-0.05%, humankind should be looking at a population in, literally, the quintillions, in the present day.

Needless to say, false assumptions.

Now that said, you're right in that the Old World has more of the dense river valley civilizations than the New, which is why it makes sense that the population in the Old World is larger than that in the Americas.

Relevant, but only slightly so.

But again, maybe I'm not understanding your point, but the "age of populations" doesn't seem to have much bearing here, considering they're essentially all old enough to thoroughly populate their homelands. In the year 1500 American populations were about 20,000 years old, African populations were 100,000, and Eurasian about 60,000-50,000. Yet the Americas in 1500 had a bit less than a quarter of the world population.

Which is where you are fundamentally wrong. It is farcical to assert that a population of ten thousand years is identical, on the face of it, to a population of forty thousand years, in terms of being 'old enough to thoroughly populate their homelands', given the archaeological evidence pointing to continued and rapid growth in the forty thousand year old population. Even if we account for the upper end of fitness-locus cataloging and allow a mere five generations for migration pressures in a 'perfect' environment to force population drain to an environment of secondary fitness, we're talking about a few dozen cycles of migration to more marginal loci, which is literally an order of magnitude less than would be necessary for us to even approach population fitness points for resettlement, which is the classical definition of geographical saturation for a given populace.

You can't assume that the Americas are at geographical saturation in ten thousand years, not without literally strapping a gestational timer of a month or so on the human race. And I'm pretty sure this RP uses baseline humans. Given neither the Americas nor Eurasia nor Africa will be approaching geographical saturation for another four thousand years, time of population is absolutely vital and, I would add with only minor qualification, perhaps the most important factor when it comes to calculating population size.

[Orostan]

Umm... yeah see that isn't how human population tend to work..? Unless I'm misunderstanding, but populations in a "virgin" (comparatively) land tend to explode and then plateau pretty quick, and since there's archaeological evidence for the continent being anything but empty. And even if there wasn't that evidence, even at the average long-term Holocene population growth rate for both agriculturalists and hunter-gatherers of about 0.04-0.05%, those initial 5,000 Bering Strait crossers, after about 14,000-15,000 years that equals the 9,000,000 or so people that is estimated.

Actually, it is exactly how population growth tends to work, using modern fitness-spatial modeling. Again, as I've asserted a half dozen times but you seem content to ignore, you really need to do some more homework. Models from the 1970s that assume ease of migration and near-perfect distribution of populations to viable sites and thus, population explosion in virgin territories, are really quite passe. Not to mention numerically infeasible when matched against known population trends in well studied paleocultures like Mesopotamia, the Indus Valley, and Italy, to name a few. If we held with the assumptions of your 0.04-0.05%, humankind should be looking at a population in, literally, the quintillions, in the present day.

Needless to say, false assumptions.

I'm interested in learning more about "fitness-spatial modeling", do you have any sources I can read on it? Google gives no relevant results.

[G-Tech Corporation]

I'm interested in learning more about "fitness-spatial modeling", do you have any sources I can read on it? Google gives no relevant results.

I'll see if I can dig anything up - that's probably not the technical name, since I've been out of university for a while now. But there's probably something on JSTOR, if you have a subscription.

The essential premise is that there is a classical conundrum when we study archaic populations, which anthropology has been asking since it became a science - why do populations grow so slowly before the modern era? Generational growth rates for mankind are, if best estimates are to be believed, indicative of populations where almost no children survive, almost all adults die prematurely, almost no elders pass on meaningful knowledge to reduce death rates, and so on, which is hard for our modern understandings of accumulated material culture and relatively similar cranial capacities to reckon with. If our ancestors are roughly as capable of learning as we are, why did they never manage to stop dying for so long?

The trick relies on the underlying assumption - that humankind will value individual and societal fitness very highly, and so when faced with situations like endemic disease, poor hygiene, lack of access to appropriate nutrition, and the like, engage in migration in order to remove themselves from these situations. If such were the case, the problem arises from the lack of population growth. Even with slow rates of migration to better regions, population growth in uncrowded conditions with ample local food variety and no significant disease should see our ancestors achieving dramatically improved growth rates compared to those observed.

So, why did our ancestors keep dying?

The answer comes from a reinterpretation of the value the individual places on fitness, and a re-calibration of the extent to which the individual is aware of the differences in fitness and the importance they place on non-fitness factors, like perceived safety from threats, ancestral properties, proximity of lineage groups, inability to exploit diverse resources, and more. Essentially, classical population growth theory runs off of this principle:

As fitness F declines below an optimal value f, migration moves population members away from less-fit sites in order to restore F to f, ad infinitum. The farther F falls below f, the more rapidly migration will occur.

Modern approaches to modeling fitness over space, and thus migration, add an additional variable, which we will call Q. Q is not the same as f, but rather represents the 'minimum acceptable fitness' an individual or populace will allow for before that loss of fitness outweighs the aforementioned non-fitness factors, and thus migration becomes preferable to staying in familiar territories.

Thus, essentially, as F declines below f, migration does not immediately occur - rather geographically clustered populations will accept this less-than-optimal fitness level until it falls yet further to the critical value of Q, at which point migration will occur - a pattern which is much delayed and accounts for significantly lower levels of population growth than that of the immediate migration pressures which classical population growth theory would espouse. Most growth in societies, then, occurs in a very short period of time post-migration, when F is as close as possible to f, and has not yet started significantly descending towards Q.

A corollary is that these migrations tend to operate on the principle of punctuated equilibrium, and are largely generational - so the amount of time a population has spent with falling fitness is absolutely salient when considering their rate of population growth.

[Orostan]

I'm interested in learning more about "fitness-spatial modeling", do you have any sources I can read on it? Google gives no relevant results.

I'll see if I can dig anything up - that's probably not the technical name, since I've been out of university for a while now. But there's probably something on JSTOR, if you have a subscription.

The essential premise is that there is a classical conundrum when we study archaic populations, which anthropology has been asking since it became a science - why do populations grow so slowly before the modern era? Generational growth rates for mankind are, if best estimates are to be believed, indicative of populations where almost no children survive, almost all adults die prematurely, almost no elders pass on meaningful knowledge to reduce death rates, and so on, which is hard for our modern understandings of accumulated material culture and relatively similar cranial capacities to reckon with. If our ancestors are roughly as capable of learning as we are, why did they never manage to stop dying for so long?

The trick relies on the underlying assumption - that humankind will value individual and societal fitness very highly, and so when faced with situations like endemic disease, poor hygiene, lack of access to appropriate nutrition, and the like, engage in migration in order to remove themselves from these situations. If such were the case, the problem arises from the lack of population growth. Even with slow rates of migration to better regions, population growth in uncrowded conditions with ample local food variety and no significant disease should see our ancestors achieving dramatically improved growth rates compared to those observed.

So, why did our ancestors keep dying?

The answer comes from a reinterpretation of the value the individual places on fitness, and a re-calibration of the extent to which the individual is aware of the differences in fitness and the importance they place on non-fitness factors, like perceived safety from threats, ancestral properties, proximity of lineage groups, inability to exploit diverse resources, and more. Essentially, classical population growth theory runs off of this principle:

As fitness F declines below an optimal value f, migration moves population members away from less-fit sites in order to restore F to f, ad infinitum. The farther F falls below f, the more rapidly migration will occur.

Modern approaches to modeling fitness over space, and thus migration, add an additional variable, which we will call Q. Q is not the same as f, but rather represents the 'minimum acceptable fitness' an individual or populace will allow for before that loss of fitness outweighs the aforementioned non-fitness factors, and thus migration becomes preferable to staying in familiar territories.

Thus, essentially, as F declines below f, migration does not immediately occur - rather geographically clustered populations will accept this less-than-optimal fitness level until it falls yet further to the critical value of Q, at which point migration will occur - a pattern which is much delayed and accounts for significantly lower levels of population growth than that of the immediate migration pressures which classical population growth theory would espouse. Most growth in societies, then, occurs in a very short period of time post-migration, when F is as close as possible to f, and has not yet started significantly descending towards Q.

A corollary is that these migrations tend to operate on the principle of punctuated equilibrium, and are largely generational - so the amount of time a population has spent with falling fitness is absolutely salient when considering their rate of population growth.

I see. That makes sense to me.

Why does this disprove Reatra’s ideas about population growth though? Isn’t it logical to assume that a lack of anyone else in an area consuming resources would be a major reason a population might grow? Even if the area doesn’t have as high an F value as the people in it want, there’s no competition from anyone else for resources and the biggest dangers would be from the environment or animals as opposed to the usually much more dangerous other humans.

A rise in population followed by a plateau makes sense if we assume that more humans reduce the fitness of an area by drawing more resources, doesn’t it?

[G-Tech Corporation]

I see. That makes sense to me.

Why does this disprove Reatra’s ideas about population growth though? Isn’t it logical to assume that a lack of anyone else in an area consuming resources would be a major reason a population might grow? Even if the area doesn’t have as high an F value as the people in it want, there’s no competition from anyone else for resources and the biggest dangers would be from the environment or animals as opposed to the usually much more dangerous other humans.

A rise in population followed by a plateau makes sense if we assume that more humans reduce the fitness of an area by drawing more resources, doesn’t it?

Mainly because of that punctuated equilibrium, and considering population growth based on fitness loci instead of a 'population cloth' like we used to.

Consider the 5000 immigrants to North America. They'll likely live in two or three population centers, not as we think of urban centers, but close enough to be considered to be part of the same populace. Spatial fitness mapping to studied populaces indicates that it takes a number of generations, 5-20 depending on who you ask, before a populace starting from f will fall to Q, and thus migrate to another fitness locus, restarting the process.

As logically follows from that, population growth is not so much a function of raw numbers of individuals, but rather both time (because we need to move through those generations before migration is provoked) and the number of sites a population occupies which is... essentially also a function of time, because the number of sites occupied grows over generations.

A Eurasia with 10,000 population sites spitting out migrants every five generations will have a much larger raw amount of their populace tied up in new high growth settlements where F is very close to f, compared to a North America with, say, twenty population sites, even if by sheer statistics a higher amount of the populace in North America might be in those high growth settlements. The hand of demography is inexorably biased towards more creating more, until we run up against geographical saturation, which I assume nobody is arguing for in 3000 BCE.

[New Arcadius]

Oh Joohan you are a blessing. Thank you so much for the event.

I guess it's time to have the wife of the Pharaoh see the light. I hope good results will come when the great battle against Archaic Egypt comes.

Also guys, the Old Kingdom haven't begun yet. They're still in that period lmao

[Reatra]

look, since it has no bearing on the roleplay, I really can't find it in myself to care enough to reply to this hilariously ahistorical and so blatantly false that I don't even know where to start shit on Mother's Day. These posts would make anthropologists from the 1920s blush haha ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ I just like doing research and this is basically the only thing I've been spending my free time on for the past year or so, and I like to help people with their worldbuilding is all, lol.

[Orostan]

I see. That makes sense to me.

Why does this disprove Reatra’s ideas about population growth though? Isn’t it logical to assume that a lack of anyone else in an area consuming resources would be a major reason a population might grow? Even if the area doesn’t have as high an F value as the people in it want, there’s no competition from anyone else for resources and the biggest dangers would be from the environment or animals as opposed to the usually much more dangerous other humans.

A rise in population followed by a plateau makes sense if we assume that more humans reduce the fitness of an area by drawing more resources, doesn’t it?

Mainly because of that punctuated equilibrium, and considering population growth based on fitness loci instead of a 'population cloth' like we used to.

Consider the 5000 immigrants to North America. They'll likely live in two or three population centers, not as we think of urban centers, but close enough to be considered to be part of the same populace. Spatial fitness mapping to studied populaces indicates that it takes a number of generations, 5-20 depending on who you ask, before a populace starting from f will fall to Q, and thus migrate to another fitness locus, restarting the process.

As logically follows from that, population growth is not so much a function of raw numbers of individuals, but rather both time (because we need to move through those generations before migration is provoked) and the number of sites a population occupies which is... essentially also a function of time, because the number of sites occupied grows over generations.

A Eurasia with 10,000 population sites spitting out migrants every five generations will have a much larger raw amount of their populace tied up in new high growth settlements where F is very close to f, compared to a North America with, say, twenty population sites, even if by sheer statistics a higher amount of the populace in North America might be in those high growth settlements. The hand of demography is inexorably biased towards more creating more, until we run up against geographical saturation, which I assume nobody is arguing for in 3000 BCE.

Geographical saturation is a very relative term. In dangerous areas where no central authority exists it would be harder to have stable large farming communities, where in an area that a central authority does exist it is much easier to have those communities without a bunch of guys from a few villages over coming over and pillaging the place. The same is true when there is no other community to come over and pillage yours.

The practical number of people that can occupy an area without killing each other and geographical saturation are different things unless geographical saturation is variable. Nothing you are saying, to my understanding, conflicts with what Reatra is saying.

[Reatra]

If we held with the assumptions of your 0.04-0.05%, humankind should be looking at a population in, literally, the quintillions, in the present day.

ok im sorry but what the fuck lmfao this just proves you're literally not engaging with anything I say and just making shit up on the fly ahaha

A pre-industrial Holocene growth rate of that literally directly mirrors world population growth since the end of the Pleistocene. Maybe if you actually cared to test it to make sure your assertion that it's in the quintillions is correct you'd have seen that lol.

you very obviously aren't actually trying to debate, so I guess I won't either. You're wrong, and most of the shit you say to back up your very strange ideas about the ancient world have either been regarded as untrue more decades or just.... literally made up. Whether it's patriarchy or population or warfare or whatever. I don't understand why you are so convinced of these positions when I literally haven't even come across half of them in a serious context. Like really. Who is taught this stuff?

Would it be better if I just left the RP and wrote about the setting on my own? Would that be simpler for everyone? I enjoy this community a lot but hey if it's just that much of a fucking burden then let me know. But I'm at the point where I just don't know what to do because the main person who is trying to "disprove" or "debate" isn't doing so.


Is this better? I like being respectful, I try to engage with actual information in posts, but hey, if it's simpler for everyone for us to just say "haha no you're wrong" at each other with a few hundred words then let me know cause I suppose I can transition to doing that too.

[Joohan]

Oh Joohan you are a blessing. Thank you so much for the event.

I guess it's time to have the wife of the Pharaoh see the light. I hope good results will come when the great battle against Archaic Egypt comes.

Also guys, the Old Kingdom haven't begun yet. They're still in that period lmao

Technically it's in the old kingdom but... the VERY early and muddy part of it. Egypt is practically unrecognizable at this point when compared to it's new Kingdom counterpart most people are familiar with.

[New Arcadius]

Oh Joohan you are a blessing. Thank you so much for the event.

I guess it's time to have the wife of the Pharaoh see the light. I hope good results will come when the great battle against Archaic Egypt comes.

Also guys, the Old Kingdom haven't begun yet. They're still in that period lmao

Technically it's in the old kingdom but... the VERY early and muddy part of it. Egypt is practically unrecognizable at this point when compared to it's new Kingdom counterpart most people are familiar with.

I do not wanna roleplay with myself though... What should I do in this event? I really hate replying and I have to write out every reaction.

[Orostan]

Technically it's in the old kingdom but... the VERY early and muddy part of it. Egypt is practically unrecognizable at this point when compared to it's new Kingdom counterpart most people are familiar with.

I do not wanna roleplay with myself though... What should I do in this event? I really hate replying and I have to write out every reaction.

You could ask someone else to write the other guy.

[Joohan]

Technically it's in the old kingdom but... the VERY early and muddy part of it. Egypt is practically unrecognizable at this point when compared to it's new Kingdom counterpart most people are familiar with.

I do not wanna roleplay with myself though... What should I do in this event? I really hate replying and I have to write out every reaction.

Well, you're faced with a choice essentially. Give sanctuary to Khemri, making yourself an enemy of Egypt, and opening up a very interesting story for future conflict and development. OR, give her up to Djer and make an ally out of him.

or, literally, whatever it is you want to do - I won't give you commands. Either way, it will be an interesting time for Menewa's character development as a leader.

[UniversalCommons]

I think there is something mystical which has infused the earth right now which creates immortals and limits population growth. It allows for all kinds of improbabilities. That is what makes this roleplay interesting.

[Orostan]

I think there is something mystical which has infused the earth right now which creates immortals and limits population growth. It allows for all kinds of improbabilities. That is what makes this roleplay interesting.

I thought interacting with ancient cultures and creating our own civilizations was what made this interesting.

[Europa Undivided]

Perhaps I will start expanding again.



I reckon to have at least in paper control over the areas in yellow (except for the area south of Saratov as the Single Market already has it as well as whatever the Commonwealth's allies to the west are). The Volga and its tributaries would thus serve as Vostoslavia's (an alternative name for the A.S.S. that literally means East Slavia since Yugoslavia is South Slavia) highways that links its settlements together.