What if the Romans, preferably after the empire has been established, decide to abolish animal fights in the arenas and/or otherwise institute game laws that result in larger surviving populations of European Lions, Bears, and Wolves, as well as anything else that disappeared or began its final decline during Roman times? Does surviving predatory animals have a considerable effect on Europe's development or Rome's decline?
WI: Romans don't decimate Europe's wildlife?
- Thread starter Avitus
- Start date
Abhakhazia
Banned
I doubt it really would do much, but I wrote a story a few years ago where a more pacifist Mediterranean island emerged as a Roman-like European superpower and without gladiatorial games, lion population in the Balkans affected Slavic migrations further south. But, again I doubt it would do anything like that.
Riain
Banned
https://www.alternatehistory.com/discussion/showthread.php?t=264728
Here's a thread from the other day about Lions still having their historic range.
In my mind the lion was declining in Greece but flourishing elsewhere with greater human civilisation, leading me to believe that lions were declining in Europe due to non-human factors. In that case I think that if the Romans were not catching the last of Europes lions they'd vanish anyway.
Here's a thread from the other day about Lions still having their historic range.
In my mind the lion was declining in Greece but flourishing elsewhere with greater human civilisation, leading me to believe that lions were declining in Europe due to non-human factors. In that case I think that if the Romans were not catching the last of Europes lions they'd vanish anyway.
Alternate History
Banned
I thought aurochs lived until about the 16th or 17th century in Eastern Europe? (Though they probably began to decline centuries earlier...)
otherwise I'm curious why you didnt mentioned still living Equus africanus (Somalian, Nubian subspecies and domesticated form)I think as long as you have agriculture and domesticated animals in Europe, then that would mean the inevitable decline in certain apex predator species. Lions are both large and live in groups. Bears are solitary, while wolves are physically smaller so won't need as much meat to sustain them, so any farmer or landowner who needs to protect his herds and his people will always view lions as a problem to be rid off.
Superaquaspiderbatman
Banned
Lions in Europe are an impossibility IMHO, in a long-term perspective. As civilization advances, towns grow, etc, the conflict between man and lion will come to a head, and that will mean the end of the lion within a century.
There might still be lions during the dark ages, after the collapse of Rome, but when Europe recovers and starts to grow and prosper again, it's a century before the last lion is hunted down and killed.
My guess would be 1200 A.D. at the very latest, but I'm no lion-expert....
There might still be lions during the dark ages, after the collapse of Rome, but when Europe recovers and starts to grow and prosper again, it's a century before the last lion is hunted down and killed.
My guess would be 1200 A.D. at the very latest, but I'm no lion-expert....
Superaquaspiderbatman
Banned
Indeed. It would depend heavily on how adaptable it would have been (retreating deeper into the forests, living off wild animals instead of livestock, except in "emergencies" (of which there would be more and more as time went on).
I'm not betting anything on 1200. It could easily be 1000 or 800 even.
Not when the Arabs move in and demand for ivory back home skyrockets.
I think North Africa would be most affected. The Atlas Bear, Atlas Lions, Elephants, and other species there that Romans killed off would still be there. And unlike much of Europe, the area is not that densely populated, meaning they'd probably still be around.
In Europe, I could see wolves surviving in larger populations in some areas, as well as bears. Lions I think were on the outs anyways. But the lions in the middle east and the tigers in western asia would have a better chance. Syrian Elephants too.
In Europe, I could see wolves surviving in larger populations in some areas, as well as bears. Lions I think were on the outs anyways. But the lions in the middle east and the tigers in western asia would have a better chance. Syrian Elephants too.
Lions arent forest animals, so that would be a problem.
If the elephants there survived until the middle ages it could effect the Norse Greenland colony as walrus ivory was one of their major exports.
which means there's a lot less incentive for Vinland or Greenland colonies. Vinland might not exist, Greenland might not last as long.
twovultures
Donor
I think it's a reasonable butterfly that, without Roman decimation of their population, the Aurochs survives with greater numbers/genetic variability and health which pushes it long enough to be saved by some king who puts a herd in his private forest.
Similar story could happen with the Atlas Bear, the extra numbers from not being captured and killed by Romans push them just long enough for someone in power to become interested in saving them. It's not the only thing that needs to happen, but it helps.