Interesting. At a guess, Atiqania is Aquitaine, Tartish is Tartessos, in southern Spain, and Oretania is Gaul? Maybe? I'm less certain on the latter. But it is interesting that it was the Tartessians who colonised their way up the Atlantic coast rather than the Phoenecians directly. Out of curiousity, will Cathage recover some of its prosperity, for reasons of geography if nothing else?
Μηδίζω! The World of Achaemenid Hellas
- Thread starter Daeres
- Start date
Wow, quite the sudden and spectacular fall for Carthage. One has to imagine how Carthage would have even handled controlling Egypt. And the fact that the Phoenicians become one of the great European cultural groups is a fascinating take. Perhaps they'll be the ones to cross the Atlantic, as their ancestors crossed the Mediterranean? What kind of timeframe did the Carthaginian collapse take place over?
Yup, yup, Oretania is in fact based on the eastern Spanish coast, with the original core being the coast of Mursia and Valencia before later expansion. I can see why you'd say Gaul given everything involving joint Hellenic-Phoenician influence there, but Oretania is somewhat tortuously derived from the name of the Ausetani, Edetani, and three different languages crunching together. They've been mentioned before offhandedly by previous authors, but they arise from what Philon refers to as the North-Eastern Iberian colonies that were founded quite late.
As for Carthage, the city itself is not dead and buried, it wasn't destroyed or fully abandoned, it still has the dockyards (albeit in need of pretty big repairs after the Amavadatid sack), it's still got its walls and its importance. What has come to an end is the specifically Carthaginian dominance over the pan-Phoenician Empire it had built. There is an argument for Utica being the most direct continuation of Carthage, as they'll regain control over a lot of Africa, control Carthage itself, and nicked a large part of the previous ruling class. But nearly all of the splinter states regard themselves as a continuation of Carthage in some capacity, and they all have some justifiable reasons for doing so. What also doesn't happen here is the collapse of the Phoenician-sphere as a whole, as in OTL. Even with Carthage herself no longer at the top, Phoenicians still rule the far western Med.
So Carthage's Empire reaches its height somewhere around 310-320 BCE here, when its Iberian territory engulfs the Banduati proto-state that had emerged on the west coast. Its teething issues between Gadir and Tartish had begun beforehand, but started getting noticable shortly afterwards, and the expedition to Egypt was in 298 BCE. The campaign in Iberia to restore matters there was in 296 BCE, with the raid of the Amavadatids taking place the following year, and the massive raid of the Numidians the year after that. By 293 the semi-depopulation and deposition of Carthage is effectively carte-blanche, and the first major war between Utica and Hadrumentum takes place over 294-287 BCE.
One thing I will also highlight is the discrepancy between our early 2nd century BCE Greek source, Philon, and those that come later. Philon, being a patriotic Sikelian Greek, is ecstatic that the still-dangerous Carthage was taken out of the picture, and is very much crowing over the collapse in their fortunes even a century later. He also implies that the legacy of Carthage had effectively been forgotten during the war, that the successors (which he never terms in that fashion) are simply barbarians squabbling over scraps. But we can see from the later sources that a Carthaginian legacy was very much alive centuries later, and the notion of a western Med Phoenician civilization as a whole, even if politically divided, was still strong over a thousand years later, even among those who do not count themselves as Phoenician. Philon's crowing is very much premature, and also misunderstands a loss of Carthaginian primacy as a loss of any sense of shared belonging, heritage, or Empire. Nor will he ultimately be proven right that none shall try to reunite the old Carthaginian Empire, though in fairness that's way past his time. I also don't think he was much of a historian, I was writing him as a very much second-rate Herodotus.
I'm having a lot of trouble visualizing what "Hadrumentum" corresponds to.
BTW, how many instances , in the course of gaming out how the intersections of evolving civilizations might shift important trade routes, create pressures on strategic borders that were of little consequence OTL, and so forth, have there been of either raising up obscure localities into major centers, causing you to have to rummage around rather misty and dubious sources to come up with local names and so on, or vice versa strangled OTL places of note by depriving them of their ancient causes for being the particular center they became OTL? The way I tend to assume things work there would be rather little of this happening; the names and cultural history of a site can change dramatically but the big centers presumably are rooted in centuries or thousands of years of holding an advantage of some kind that persists in importance, which in turn assumes that major sources of trade goods and major markets for them tend to remain in roughly the same place no matter who is doing the cultivating and other productive steps, who is doing the trading, and who the consuming. One might say for instance that the cities around Trier OTL might not exist had the Romans settled on some other boundary, but I'd say there were deep reasons they would push to the Rhine and not much beyond, and nerfing Rome badly enough sets up some other power in Gaul seeking and finding a boundary there, not farther south and east, and not far beyond. But I suppose eventually one finds a place whose history is dependent on something pretty capricious--it is indeed quite often that an old center will decline or vanish completely while a new one nearby is set up in its place. But sometimes that too seems inevitable in sequence; the OTL kingdom of Portugal could not preempt the role of Spain; Amalfi probably could not avoid being surpassed and cut off by Pisa, Genoa and Venice. Invading conquerors might have sustained Babylon instead of creating new cities in the near region, but perhaps one motive of these Classical and later invaders was that the old sites had become unsustainable despite heroic efforts to keep them so by the old regimes, between desalination and shifting river courses perhaps.
It is certainly exciting to see Mediterranean civilization taking deep root on the Atlantic shores of southern Gaul, reaching to Amorica and thence to Britain. I did wonder if the Carthagenians had considered striving to make a secured overland shortcut to communicate with these shores overland from the Mediterranean. Indeed it seems the effort to bypass Emporium might have had that in mind too, as a secondary task however, and that it came to grief. So had Carthage's supremacy been more sustainable, maybe there would have been a drive to do that?
But others point out the Gaulish colonies are not really a Carthagenian effort at all but a tertiary wave coming out of Iberian territories the Carthegianians regarded as under their sway but which slipped out during the general crises putting a check on a generic Phoenician empire; even if a concerted drive by Carthage to get direct communications were undertaken it would be uphill all the way, with the locals on the Atlantic little inclined to cooperate. Of course in this era sea communications are so much more economical that even a short isthmus overland is more costly to cross than a very long circumnavigation of whatever the isthmus connects to; a "direct" connection would be of little economic value (and what little it might have would be in competition with Massalia) but at best a matter of saving time--which is why I have been using the word "communication" rather than "commerce." If Carthage or any other Med super-city could establish a more or less Roman like domination then such things become important; if there is a patchwork of regional states instead no one particularly cares.
BTW, how many instances , in the course of gaming out how the intersections of evolving civilizations might shift important trade routes, create pressures on strategic borders that were of little consequence OTL, and so forth, have there been of either raising up obscure localities into major centers, causing you to have to rummage around rather misty and dubious sources to come up with local names and so on, or vice versa strangled OTL places of note by depriving them of their ancient causes for being the particular center they became OTL? The way I tend to assume things work there would be rather little of this happening; the names and cultural history of a site can change dramatically but the big centers presumably are rooted in centuries or thousands of years of holding an advantage of some kind that persists in importance, which in turn assumes that major sources of trade goods and major markets for them tend to remain in roughly the same place no matter who is doing the cultivating and other productive steps, who is doing the trading, and who the consuming. One might say for instance that the cities around Trier OTL might not exist had the Romans settled on some other boundary, but I'd say there were deep reasons they would push to the Rhine and not much beyond, and nerfing Rome badly enough sets up some other power in Gaul seeking and finding a boundary there, not farther south and east, and not far beyond. But I suppose eventually one finds a place whose history is dependent on something pretty capricious--it is indeed quite often that an old center will decline or vanish completely while a new one nearby is set up in its place. But sometimes that too seems inevitable in sequence; the OTL kingdom of Portugal could not preempt the role of Spain; Amalfi probably could not avoid being surpassed and cut off by Pisa, Genoa and Venice. Invading conquerors might have sustained Babylon instead of creating new cities in the near region, but perhaps one motive of these Classical and later invaders was that the old sites had become unsustainable despite heroic efforts to keep them so by the old regimes, between desalination and shifting river courses perhaps.
It is certainly exciting to see Mediterranean civilization taking deep root on the Atlantic shores of southern Gaul, reaching to Amorica and thence to Britain. I did wonder if the Carthagenians had considered striving to make a secured overland shortcut to communicate with these shores overland from the Mediterranean. Indeed it seems the effort to bypass Emporium might have had that in mind too, as a secondary task however, and that it came to grief. So had Carthage's supremacy been more sustainable, maybe there would have been a drive to do that?
But others point out the Gaulish colonies are not really a Carthagenian effort at all but a tertiary wave coming out of Iberian territories the Carthegianians regarded as under their sway but which slipped out during the general crises putting a check on a generic Phoenician empire; even if a concerted drive by Carthage to get direct communications were undertaken it would be uphill all the way, with the locals on the Atlantic little inclined to cooperate. Of course in this era sea communications are so much more economical that even a short isthmus overland is more costly to cross than a very long circumnavigation of whatever the isthmus connects to; a "direct" connection would be of little economic value (and what little it might have would be in competition with Massalia) but at best a matter of saving time--which is why I have been using the word "communication" rather than "commerce." If Carthage or any other Med super-city could establish a more or less Roman like domination then such things become important; if there is a patchwork of regional states instead no one particularly cares.
I'm also curious to see how far the concept of "Cadmian" unity of Hellenic and Punic cultures as cousins or twins or whatever can be taken by later societies that value contributions from both go, versus the idea they are different strands that are blended later. The Roman notion that they could tie themselves into Hellenic mythology and legend via claiming descent from Troy--via Carthage!--didn't seem to go very far OTL; it is something that has to be described in footnotes to Virgil, not generally known to people with a smattering of exposure to Classical culture as conventionally conveyed today. One would think Christendom might have made a big deal of the Old Testament genealogy describing the descent of branches of children of Noah but medieval culture as I know it generally didn't make much use of the framework; that would be reserved for later Protestant cults typically found in America and Britain making out the Britons to somehow be the lost tribes of Israel, miraculously extricated from a whole improbable stream of exiles to re-concentrate in Europe--indeed the American versions tended to attribute just some tribes to Britain and reconstruct the rest among other European immigrants to America--the Hand of God inspired just the right people to resolve to cross the ocean and settle in the New World, so it would appear. Or the other popular notion that Native Americans were the Lost Tribes also waited to the 19th century, just as scientific anthropology, diverted via racist apologetics, was developing to challenge such romantic notions. All these ideas remained fringe minority concepts of course OTL.
The irony is that traditional legends quite often do contain verifiable content, if often grossly distorted by parochial perceptions of the weight of various streams; Abrahamic tradition can often be lined up with objective historic and archeological reconstructions for instance.
Both Phoenician and Hellenic traditions crystalized in later centuries and are less informative to be sure.
If the "Cadmian" school gains any traction, will they integrate other Semitic peoples too, such as the Hebrews, Arabs and the Aramaic layer of the Fertile Crescent generally? Or pose some artificial separation that will be problematic later?
The irony is that traditional legends quite often do contain verifiable content, if often grossly distorted by parochial perceptions of the weight of various streams; Abrahamic tradition can often be lined up with objective historic and archeological reconstructions for instance.
Both Phoenician and Hellenic traditions crystalized in later centuries and are less informative to be sure.
If the "Cadmian" school gains any traction, will they integrate other Semitic peoples too, such as the Hebrews, Arabs and the Aramaic layer of the Fertile Crescent generally? Or pose some artificial separation that will be problematic later?
I must say how much I'm enjoying the linguistic effect: the use of Hellenic names in Hellenic sources, Punic in Punic sources, etc.
Interesting that Britain still gets a similar name (Pryde) rather than anything like Alba/Albion for the white cliffs.
Interesting that Britain still gets a similar name (Pryde) rather than anything like Alba/Albion for the white cliffs.
Before replying, I'd just like to say I sincerely and wholeheartedly look forward to your responses to the updates, it's one of my favourite things about writing the timeline. I always get excited about people replying but yours in particular have a depth and consideration put into them that I relish, and I feel genuinely complimented that what I'm writing provokes that level of thought.
For your first issue that you're having some trouble with, wikipedia to the rescue! It was to the south of Carthage and potentially older, the 'second city of the Carthaginian Empire' status was really mostly claimed by Utica but all of the other old colonies of Africa had similar pretensions from what we can tell, and I see no reason why the Old Cities club of Africa would have been content for just one of their number to replace Carthage when that level of hegemony was probably resented in the first place.
As for raising up obscure centres vs depreciating older ones, there has been some of the first but not very much of the second. Most important cities that have shown up in the timeline were genuinely important in some fashion in OTL, but the exact level of their significance has varied. I absolutely agree that there's some underlying factors that tend to promote certain cities growing for certain reasons and having a reason to become more powerful. But politics and human willpower do have a tendency to ignore purely pragmatic concerns, not to mention introduce a certain wild card factor in the promotion of certain cities or the depreciation of others in OTL. Argos and Syracuse both enriched themselves by stripping neighbouring poleis of their populations by force, Alexander chose to keep Babylon as capital whereas Seleukos committed to an entirely fresh urban foundation in Mesopotamia, Thebes and the rest of Boiotia were seized after the Persian Wars as punishment for supporting the Persians, Sybaris was destroyed by a coalition of neighbouring poleis, Rhodes was awarded huge swathes of land in Anatolia because of its importance to feuding Hellenistic states. These and many, many other such incidents are hugely subject to the whims of particular people and the outcomes of particular wars.
Alexander did not build new cities but he did refound a number of important fortifications, the presence of Macedonian settlers and garrisons making them more important to his successors than they might otherwise been, the choice of which sites were refounded hugely depending on his specific campaigns within the Achaemenids' borders, and then without the Seleukids would we have had a specific situation in which a Greek ruling class did not rule its own homeland and have to found immense numbers of new cities across its Empire with imported Greek colonists? The list goes on and on. And there are other ways in which the purely practical growth and emergence of cities can be affected by more organic events; whether the place is self-ruled or subject to a foreign power, if it's subject to a foreign power whether it's of particular significance to that power, does that power consider this location rebellious or loyal, if it's self-ruled is it part of a larger state, is it at the frontier of a state or the heart of it, has the site got a wider cultural significance beyond its vital statistics, is there an organised system of labour and government capable of clearing marshes or dredging rivers or building irrigation canals. History and the whims of people is the difference between Byzantion the trading city, mostly known for being conquered by anyone securing the Bosporos or Black Sea grain routes, and Konstantinoplis the Queen of Cities. Organic affairs is why there was a Spain with those possessions and borders at that time vs Portugal with its, or why Genoa, Pisa, and Venice were free agents able to act so concertedly and independently against Amalfi.
You definitely recognise the capriciousness of history but I think you underestimate it. This is certainly a timeline that revels in a reasoned capriciousness, after all the very PoD in question is based on that principle, and this is a period in which the very terms of continental Europe's urbanisation were being set. I've not been raising up centres that had no significance OTL, but I am also trading on a slightly different notion of obscurity to a lot of people; in my academic life I moved outside of the usual suspects in Classical history a long time ago, and discovered that famous doesn't always equal important. This is a timeline where reasoned capriciousness is fighting tooth and nail against practical, set in stone factors all the time, which is why Carthage will remain a major city even after being deposed as head of its own Empire, and why it's Burdigala/OTL Bordeaux that becomes the chief colony of Tartessian Aquitania, and why Gergovia will be one of the biggest cities in Southern Gaul, and why Capua remains a city of growing importance throughout these centuries. Rest assured, where a city unfamiliar in the hitlist of OTL ancient cities turns up, it's either a genuinely important but neglected one from OTL or one which has seen an improvement in its fortunes in TTL or it's a site that has distinct advantages. Sparta might be gone but there will be a city in Lakedaimonia that will replace it as a local centre of government and power.
My instinct about Carthage is that they would have expanded into the territory of the Elisyces in TTL if they had kept going, establishing a colony at Narbo, and then branched overland into the Garonne valley and then the Gironde Estuary, though I doubt they'd have actually managed to take Burdigala in that timeline for some while and would instead have had substantial overland outposts on the road out of Narbo more like fortified emporia or staging posts. Then again, had Carthage not come to grief, I'm not sure the entire Tartish Atlantic project would have come to fruition, since that was partially a response to Gadir's strangehold on the Pillars of Hercules, and any colonisation in Southern Gaul would have remained Med-centric. As you say, it would only have been a really 'sensible' project as part of an effort to really go for the imperial dream in that part of the world, where they were already committed to securing and pacifying the entire region so hang the expense and the irritable tribes. For Tartish, however, the Atlantic is their focus, and their core in Iberia, they can afford and indeed need to secure some of the overland routes from the Atlantic coast to the Mediterranean so they don't keep getting utterly fleeced by the Gadirians, and can also connect up to the Etruscan/Greek favoured routes into Gaul. This wasn't my intent when making it but it rather reminds me of how the Sogdians had their caravans going from Samarkhand all the way to Chang'an and the Indians linked up to that route through Himalayan passes rather than going round the west.
The Cadmeian notion of similarity and connection between the Hellenes and Phoenicians has most traction in the 'Phoenician' parts of Europe, at first, all of the later authors of those cultures we've read have made big references to these concepts in one form or another, like Anbl Hsh and his excavations in the Canary Islands emphasising the signs of joint Helleno-Phoenician colonisation. But they will eventually have their day in Italy too, I figured the Popular model of history would be quite taken with frameworks emphasising commonalities between cultures rather than chauvinism. Plus, different societies have different 'classical' precursors come and go in popularity, look at the way different western societies have emphasised Greece vs Rome or Athens vs Sparta at different times, or when someone like an Alfred or a Charlemagne is emphasised versus Romans. As for Hellas itself and the eastern Hellenes (I really will get around to establishing a name for the different later Hellenic cultures, I swear), by the alt *16th-17th century the whole issue is rather confusing for them, assimilated as they are into 'Asia' and the notion of commonality with the Near Eastern cultures for many many centuries by that point. It's one of the many fundamental differences that crystallises, a comfort as being part of Asia vs a separation of Hellenes from the Easterners, not that Italy in that period is exactly 1000+ years of the most classical Classical Greeks in history either.
The Roman attempt to tie themselves to Greek mythology was not entirely unsuccessful, and they did have a legitimate claim to being a Hellenised part of the world after all, with its literate class of Greek reading and speaking nobles, wholesale adoption of Greek myth alongside their own, and longstanding Hellenic influence on their culture (some of which came via the medium of the Etruscans, mind you). But the equivalent here is, rather than the Roman classical attempt to fit into the Hellenic story, the genuine later blend of the two into a Greco-Roman identity by the late Empire, and as remembered by Europe and continued in the Eastern Empire. The equation of many elements Greek and Roman culture by medieval and early modern European culture, well into the early 20th century, was very much a thing, and that's the model I'm working with here, albeit very loosely given that there's no Syracusan or Carthaginian Empire physically uniting these peoples for centuries. The equation of Etruscans with an outreach of Hellenic culture is near-total, especially for those emphasizing the Asiatic heritage of Italian civilization via the Greeks.
As for the other Semitic peoples, that's a good question; in Hellas proper the answer would be yes, as these are all Asian peoples, considered a fundamentally similar kind even with their different languages and histories, except by those with new manifestations of chauvinism or a particular admiration for the pre-Persian Wars Greeks for one reason or another. But the Cadmeian school, focused on transforming western Mediterranean attitudes, is effectively unconcerned about these other ancient peoples, they're so much background noise to the two important protagonists of the Hellenes and Phoenicians, and their cadet branch the Etruscans. As you rightly considered here forms a new paradigm for potential chauvinism, based on the geographical remoteness and seeming irrelevance of a number of peoples to the development of their societies. This conflicts with the Olikan interest in archaeology and ancient worship and understanding the nature of human historical evolution quite considerably, not to mention the political and cultural gravity of Asia that exists TTL, so the Cadmeian movement becomes another faultline in fairly ideologically and politically divisive times, with some preferring a more generous outlook but others emphasising a narrow vision of cultural evolution that still, somehow, is distinctly less narrow than the prevailing views beforehand.
Don't worry, this timeline never bothers with one toponym when you can have four, with at least two being from OTL extinct or obscure languages...
Because of the long distance between the PoD and present day, and the radical differences that I still need to fully work out for some periods, if we get a glimpse at the modern day it won't be for a while, simply so I can feel more assured as to what that would look like. I've effectively been treating the early 18th century as 'the modern day' of the later updates, no source has been quoted which postdates that period.
As for divergences in philosophy, absolutely; in terms of what has been posted already, you have a weakening of democracy as a form of state governance, the influence of Iranian and Near Eastern religion on Greek religious thought, the physical presence of Buddhism in the Near East and Macedonia (with outposts elsewhere, an extract in one update references a Buddhist mission to Germanic peoples), the influence of Greek/Orphic religion on that western Buddhism, the integration of Buddhism into the Near Eastern religious world, the relative screw to the cultural importance of Athens and the growth in cultural importance of Italia and Sicily (which frankly was already big in OTL, were it not for the tremendous survival bias of Athenian source material that would probably be clearer), the much longer history of Pythagoreanism as a political movement in Italy TTL.
As for metaphysical and ethical philosophy, that is an area I haven't yet touched but I'm saving that for a later chapter, and yes there are certainly other divergences in that regard, particularly with the butterflying away of most of the Classical philosophers most famous to us.
As for divergences in philosophy, absolutely; in terms of what has been posted already, you have a weakening of democracy as a form of state governance, the influence of Iranian and Near Eastern religion on Greek religious thought, the physical presence of Buddhism in the Near East and Macedonia (with outposts elsewhere, an extract in one update references a Buddhist mission to Germanic peoples), the influence of Greek/Orphic religion on that western Buddhism, the integration of Buddhism into the Near Eastern religious world, the relative screw to the cultural importance of Athens and the growth in cultural importance of Italia and Sicily (which frankly was already big in OTL, were it not for the tremendous survival bias of Athenian source material that would probably be clearer), the much longer history of Pythagoreanism as a political movement in Italy TTL.
As for metaphysical and ethical philosophy, that is an area I haven't yet touched but I'm saving that for a later chapter, and yes there are certainly other divergences in that regard, particularly with the butterflying away of most of the Classical philosophers most famous to us.
One could certainly argue with a straight face that it's still the cultural importance of Athens, just the transplanted Athens in Megathenai leading the Italiote league. Speaking of which are we getting any closer look on how this evolved over time?
I definitely want to show off the Italiote League/s as a cultural entity more closely, as we've seen the earliest beginnings of the First Italiote League and the foundation of Megathenai/Dikaia, and its interactions with Syracuse, and some of its foreign policy in Italy over several centuries, but we haven't taken a look inside the hood beyond the early things like the beginning of the Kumaian Games. Neither did I spent that early update showing off the sheer quantity of Hellenic colonies in Italy for them all to play second fiddle to the Athenian exiles in the body of the alt history.
I'd think it's reasonable to assume that the Italiote League is much closer to the later Achaean and Aetolian leagues of the Hellenistic era than the Delian league, with the Athenian exiles as first among equals? There is even precedent for something like this in the Ionian revolt. That said I must profess a certain soft spot for the Italiotes over their Sicilian cousins, what with the first being for the time at least, the last major democracy and Syracuse having constant problems with tyrants showing up, grabbing up power and trying to declare themselves king...
Map: The Carnute Empire
Between work and having a monster of a cold it's been a hard slog getting this next update together, but the good news is that it is coming together, and I think we can expect it finished in the next week.
In the meantime, I found myself with some free time and made a map. In true Achaemenid Hellas fashion, it is not a straightforward map, nor is it a map of a state that we've seen before, because I'm nothing if not consistent.
Let me introduce you to the great Empire of the Karnutes of the *1st-4th centuries AD!
This is meant to be my 'translation' of a period map, commissioned by the Empire itself, showing all of its claimed domains, along with the coast of Africa (both because of the Karnutes' allies there but also because it would have looked less harmonious). The attempts at symmetry and equal divisions are entirely purposeful, along with the unusual orientation; the Karnutes, along with the rest of the Gauls, have long since been influenced by Etruscan notions of all things having their proper divisions, with the districts of the heavens being reflected below. It is with great purpose, then, that the map attempts to do the same for the provinces and peoples of the Karnute state.
The symbol in the upper parts of the map is the official one of the Karnute Empire, the wolf surmounted by a yellow star. This is adapted from an OTL Karnute symbology found on their coinage, and ITTL the imagery is fairly archaic given the kind of art now being produced for the Empire and its ruling classes, even crude.
I am interested to see what you all think, and don't worry; if people like it, it doesn't mean I've given up on making the map of TTL's Achaemenid Empire to end all maps. But I might well make more maps from the world itself, as it fits with the philosophy of the timeline so well.
In the meantime, I found myself with some free time and made a map. In true Achaemenid Hellas fashion, it is not a straightforward map, nor is it a map of a state that we've seen before, because I'm nothing if not consistent.
Let me introduce you to the great Empire of the Karnutes of the *1st-4th centuries AD!
The symbol in the upper parts of the map is the official one of the Karnute Empire, the wolf surmounted by a yellow star. This is adapted from an OTL Karnute symbology found on their coinage, and ITTL the imagery is fairly archaic given the kind of art now being produced for the Empire and its ruling classes, even crude.
I am interested to see what you all think, and don't worry; if people like it, it doesn't mean I've given up on making the map of TTL's Achaemenid Empire to end all maps. But I might well make more maps from the world itself, as it fits with the philosophy of the timeline so well.
I like the map rather a lot. It shows us, as all historical maps do, how the cartographer saw their world. In this case, it shows us that the Carnutes saw their world in tribal terms. More so in their Gallic homeland than in Iberia, where geographic names take over. The names of the seas are Greek, which indicates a strong Hellenic influence on Carnuti high culture, most likely via Massalia. The fact that each tribe/province is assigned a capital indicates that urbanisation is spread fairly well through this empire, and the fact that none seem to have the awkward long names that colonies often tend to would seem to indicate that this are indigenous foundations. The degree of self rule excersised by local kings and nobilities, and poleis in the Hellenised regions, is less clear, but I doubt it is any less than Roman subjects were afforded, and most likely significantly more.
Edit: Having gone and read the accompanying text more closely, I now see a distinct resemblance to one of those liver-diagrams that were used to teach augurs how to read entrails. Masterfully done.
Edit: Having gone and read the accompanying text more closely, I now see a distinct resemblance to one of those liver-diagrams that were used to teach augurs how to read entrails. Masterfully done.
That was precisely what the inspiration was! It's one of the closest physical representations we have of the Etruscan belief in the districts and divisions of the heavens, so it felt very appropriate as visual inspiration for an Etruscan derived lineage of mapmaking.
Aviennca's Pupil
Banned
@Daeres
Pardon me, but may I ask how far this TL will be running? I have been having a blast reading your TL and I simply don't want it to stop.
May I ask whether or not you have plans for the Sassanids and Late Antiquity in general?
Yours truly, Aviennca's Pupil
Pardon me, but may I ask how far this TL will be running? I have been having a blast reading your TL and I simply don't want it to stop.
May I ask whether or not you have plans for the Sassanids and Late Antiquity in general?
Yours truly, Aviennca's Pupil
Map: Italia in 386 BCE
This update is proving a bit tough to finish still, mostly thanks to Cyprus of all places. I made another map to help clear my thoughts, this time a standard one covering Italia. I put a bit of detail into it, so hopefully this will be pretty useful for a number of updates past, present, and future.
