Delete

Status
Not open for further replies.
Actually before I leave, I wanna say thanks for giving me a fun idea for a CK3 campaign. A Cornish empire that includes all of North Africa, Constantinople, Near east, and Sicily, beautiful.
 
Cacti are not native to the middle east they were imported to the region post 1492, Also eating camels is a great way of fucking themselves over. How would they transport supplies after dinner is over?
Raise the camels from the dead, rinse and repeat?

I'm curious how they make things like "establishes his dynasty as the only descendants of Horus making the throne there birthright excluding females and their descendants making them the only religiously qualified rulers" stick. "I will it, therefore it is so in the hearts of all men." has never been as easy as as that, especially when a ruler is making drastic changes to society.

And even if it does stick - well, excluding women and their descendants means you'd better get awfully lucky on the men of the dynasty having sons, and them not fighting amongst themselves.
 
Last edited:
You should have put this in ASB because even if every single Egyptian king was somehow a ruler on par with Augustus your scenario still wouldn’t work without the outside intervention of some kind of god
 
Raise the camels from the dead, rinse and repeat?

I'm curious how they make things like "establishes his dynasty as the only descendants of Horus making the throne there birthright excluding females and their descendants making them the only religiously qualified rulers" stick. "I will it, therefore it is so in the hearts of all men." has never been as easy as as that, especially when a ruler is making drastic changes to society.

And even if it does stick - well, excluding women and their descendants means you'd better get awfully lucky on the men of the dynasty having sons, and them not fighting amongst themselves.
after a few generations of religious propaganda it will be so in the hearts of all commoners
 
Treating this semi-plausibly (which I really shouldn't be btw), I'd draw people's attention to the massive Nile on the map. This clearly isn't just poor mapping but is actually a clue to the real story here.

The Nile being so massive means two things:
1. Its flood zone is even bigger, which equals more more land to grow crops on
2. To sustain that size, the rainfall levels in Sub-Saharan Africa must be substantially larger than OTL which means a milder African climate that further increases the land available for agriculture.

Combine the two and you have an immensely fertile Egypt that can sustain far more agriculture than IOTL and, as a result, a far larger population. The two combined evidentially then provides both the manpower and wealth to conquer and organise this empire.
 
Another problem with having Egypt conquer North Africa at that time is that there's basically nothing there to actually conquer. You'd have to go full settler colonialist to get that territory, building towns and cities from the ground up. I don't think this is viable as there's no experience of doing something like that anywhere in the world. Egyptian farmers know how to grow food with the Niles floods, but do they know anything about agriculture at rivers that don't seasonally flood fields or dryer places that require wells or rain?
 

PsyloSurgeon

Gone Fishin'
This is not a bad idea.
The problem with your idea is how to achieve it and timescales. Egypt would not go through long periods of internal development as a society before it can really form a Roman-like empire in the Bronze age. It would need to have more advanced intellectual culture through literacy and philosophical emphasis on math, science and rationality like the Greeks many millenia later. It would need to engage in land reform, and develop a class of independent farmers as a middle class. It would need an efficient economical system with a system of currency and financial institutions such as joint-stock companies and banking. Instead of building large monuments like pyramids, the Egyptians focus on civic infrastructure and development . Along with as you said, different cultural norms that are open to maritime exploration .
This would mean that Egypt would be a fundamentally different society, even if many cultural practices remain similar. I expect practices like mummification to be superseded by burial or cremation, and large mausoleums would not be built. Temple estates which characterized the decay of egypt, would not arise and largely subservient to state building.
This process would take over 800 years, from 3100 BC to 2300 BC.
Under the Old Kingdom, the Eastern Mediterannean would be subject to Egyptian maritime colonization or occupaiton. The Levant including Cyprus would be under Egyptian Rule. The Minoan civilization plus greek islands would be under egyptian rule. The Egyptians would conquer Nubia much earlier and establish colonies as far as Yemen and Punt region.
Egyptians would send expeditions into the western mediteranean, and establish colonies in Sicily, Sardinia, Tunisia, and Italian peninsula. Beyond this would be too peripheral and backward for any real interest at this stage.
I imagine the Egyptian regime settling poor and landless egyptians as a way to curb domestic instability, and economically exploiting these colonies for Mercantilist capitalism. Egypt would capture the entirely of the Mediterannean trade and influence, reaping massive economic benefits. Economic development along with extensive emigration would cause labor costs to rise in the Egypt, and would spur demand for mechanization. This may prompt an early scientific or proto-industrial revolution.

That being said, I am not sure how to change the course of Ancient Egyptian civilization to these ends.
 
Raise the camels from the dead, rinse and repeat?

I'm curious how they make things like "establishes his dynasty as the only descendants of Horus making the throne there birthright excluding females and their descendants making them the only religiously qualified rulers" stick. "I will it, therefore it is so in the hearts of all men." has never been as easy as as that, especially when a ruler is making drastic changes to society.

And even if it does stick - well, excluding women and their descendants means you'd better get awfully lucky on the men of the dynasty having sons, and them not fighting amongst themselves.

Succession system is really messy since pharaohs are allowd having several wives. This of course increase plausibility to get sons but there would be hellish lot of rivalry between multiple wives and sons which probably turns pretty ugly really quickly. And getting such empire to work you would need long long line of very competent pharaohs. It not seem likely. You just can't get tens of very competent pharaohs in row even without problems due incest. Eventually there would be pharaoh who mess things or there would be civil war.

And futhermore such empire has eventually fight with rising Hittite and Assyrian Empires in Middle East. And probably deal with several rebellions around the empire.
 
Succession system is really messy since pharaohs are allowd having several wives. This of course increase plausibility to get sons but there would be hellish lot of rivalry between multiple wives and sons which probably turns pretty ugly really quickly. And getting such empire to work you would need long long line of very competent pharaohs. It not seem likely. You just can't get tens of very competent pharaohs in row even without problems due incest. Eventually there would be pharaoh who mess things or there would be civil war.
Or both.

There's a lot working against "Pharaoh sets up a dynasty that is perfectly able, perfectly stable, and perfectly enduring." for centuries and very little working for it whatever laws he passes.
 
Everyone was talking about Cornwall and I was really confused trying to find a place in Africa with that name until I read "Bronze Age England" and saw the tiiiiny little green dot on the map where Britain is...

I have no words to describe how much joy this brought to my day, thank you

Being serious though, I dont think the guy is (intentionally) trolling
Looks more like someone inexperienced with alternate history who buys too much on things like Carthage reaching America and went on a gaffe streak
 
It would need to have more advanced intellectual culture through literacy and philosophical emphasis on math, science and rationality like the Greeks many millenia later. It would need to engage in land reform, and develop a class of independent farmers as a middle class. It would need an efficient economical system with a system of currency and financial institutions such as joint-stock companies and banking. Instead of building large monuments like pyramids, the Egyptians focus on civic infrastructure and development . Along with as you said, different cultural norms that are open to maritime exploration .
This would mean that Egypt would be a fundamentally different society, even if many cultural practices remain similar. I expect practices like mummification to be superseded by burial or cremation, and large mausoleums would not be built. Temple estates which characterized the decay of egypt, would not arise and largely subservient to state building.
This process would take over 800 years, from 3100 BC to 2300 BC.
Under the Old Kingdom, the Eastern Mediterannean would be subject to Egyptian maritime colonization or occupaiton. The Levant including Cyprus would be under Egyptian Rule. The Minoan civilization plus greek islands would be under egyptian rule. The Egyptians would conquer Nubia much earlier and establish colonies as far as Yemen and Punt region.
Egyptians would send expeditions into the western mediteranean, and establish colonies in Sicily, Sardinia, Tunisia, and Italian peninsula. Beyond this would be too peripheral and backward for any real interest at this stage.
I imagine the Egyptian regime settling poor and landless egyptians as a way to curb domestic instability, and economically exploiting these colonies for Mercantilist capitalism. Egypt would capture the entirely of the Mediterannean trade and influence, reaping massive economic benefits. Economic development along with extensive emigration would cause labor costs to rise in the Egypt, and would spur demand for mechanization. This may prompt an early scientific or proto-industrial revolution.

That being said, I am not sure how to change the course of Ancient Egyptian civilization to these ends.

The Nile being so massive means two things:
1. Its flood zone is even bigger, which equals more more land to grow crops on
2. To sustain that size, the rainfall levels in Sub-Saharan Africa must be substantially larger than OTL which means a milder African climate that further increases the land available for agriculture.

Combine the two and you have an immensely fertile Egypt that can sustain far more agriculture than IOTL and, as a result, a far larger population. The two combined evidentially then provides both the manpower and wealth to conquer and organise this empire.

Sounds like a good scenario
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top