The years of maize and sorghum

This is a little off-topic, but does anyone know of any TLs where all of Eurasia is wiped out by the *plague? This would leave sub-Saharan Africa, the Americas, and Oceania as the only hosts of civilization left.

Any help would be appreciated.

I don't know of any, but I think it's and interesting idea. Maybe we can discuss one here. So, what if Eurasia and North Africa had been wiped out by a plag as in The years of Rice and Salt???

Or, if you think it's too ASB, what if a sort of fungus or deadly plant disease had attacked the cereales which were the base of the diet of the people throughout Eurasia during the XV century (wheat, barley and rice)? Let's say this fungus or disease never reaches the Americas (due to the Ocean), Ocenia (for the same reasons) and Subsaharan Africa due to the Sahara.

Let's say Eurasian Populations drops 95% or more, and that survivors are unable to grow any cereal crops, and are forced to become huntergatherers, fishers or herders (which would keep their numbers low), until American crops are introduced.

Which civilization would eventually dominate: the american ones, African ones, or a Polynesian-based one? Which group would develop faster and get in touch with the others first???
 
Africa will very probably become dominant. They are already in the Iron Age, are literate, and know routes to the newly uninhabited lands. Islam is already established in sub-Saharan Africa, so there will be high motivation for re-establishment of the holy cities in Arabia. Christianity, OTOH, has only limited presence in and near Abyssinia. Resettlement of Eurasia will begin by sea from the East African trading cities to the Middle East, from the Mamluk-controlled Upper Nile down the Nile to the Mediterranean, from East Africa by the monsoon routes to India, and from Mali north on the trans-Sahara caravan routes.
 
Well, I think you can't count the Polynesians out. They have a good agricultural package and much more experience with overseas expansion than Africans. What they do not have is numbers.

When exactly is the POD?
 
Anything that hits Afro-Eurasia that hard is going to cross the Sahara, easily. By the time of the Black Plague there was substantial trade across the Sahara; all of the sub-Saharan empires were based upon trade with the outside world! :rolleyes: Also, the Arab-Indian slave trade network had been happening up and down the Eastern coasts of the continent, from the Horn all the way down to the Cape of Good Hope.

Anytime of super-bug that wipes out civilizations in Eurasia will take everything else down with it, human geography dictates it. The only places free of its affects will be Australia and some South Pacific islands, and the Americas.
 
Last edited:
Interesting. I'm sort of exploring this idea in one of my projects (without Africa), and I do find it a fascinating topic.

I think that saying any one civilization will dominate is a little complicated, because after the effects of the Event will make enormous changes on the society. However [a] civilization(s) descended from African ones will probably be dominant, because they have the largest technological base at the time of the event and are the ones most poised to enter the now vacated Eurasian landmass.

There will be three (possibly four) entry points to the now vacated Eurasian landmass:
1)From Africa, across the Sahara then though either Gibraltar or the Middle East
2)From Oceana, across Indonesia (presumably New Guinea's highlands are left untouched, yes?)
3)From America across the Bering sea
(4?) It's possible, if unlikely, that Inuit may travel from Greenland to Iceland then to northern Europe.
(Note: Considering Native American watercraft technology at the time of the Event, I consider it unlikely that there will be contact between the two worlds in a reasonable timeframe)
I've made a quick sketch here:
examplem&s.png

Th red line is what (I think, I claim no expertise) will be the rough limit of Polynesian/New Guinea Highland crops in Asia, the dotted line will be the marginal (very marginal) limit. Which brings us to the next major issue, crops. The spread of civilization will be heavily limited by where crops can go. So, even though I would expect the remaining berber tribes of Africa to very rapidly spread throughout Eurasia along the deserts, subsaharan settled civilization, with cities and iron working etc. will take much lnoger since the crops won't work well north of the Sahara (it depends on if Ethiopia survives, that would change things a lot, though I'm not sure how); just look how much trouble they had in the veldt. The Polynesians have an advantage, since their crops will be more suited to more of the abandoned area (please not that I'm well aware of New Zeeland's climate, but I think the area beyond the marginal line will be too dry, not to cold, for cultivation).

These are not insurmountable challenges however, so I would expect that after a few hundreds of years, both groups will be aggressively expanding into the temperate zone, which is when things get interesting. The Subsaharan Afirecan descendnats have a large advantage due to Ironworking, but I'm not sure how long that will last. It'd be interesting to see.

So after a millenia or so, what I'd expect to see is that western Eurasia is dominated by SubSaharan African descended peoples, with East Eurasia dominated by Polynesia descendants, with somewhere around western India being the dividing line; and North Eurasia to be populated with Inuit descendants (central Asia, along the steps, by pastoral Berber descendants)

Other random notes:
-The Andean peoples will probably start to meet polynesians by the end of the first 500 years (at least). Not sure what effect that will have on Eurasia (I have a number of ideas on the Ameircas, but this post is already getting long) , but interesting.
-Most diseases will have died out, except for the in Subsahara, so that gives them another advantage.

examplem&s.png
 
What about Siberia? Native Siberians were certainly more isolated from the rest of the world than most sub-Sarahan Africans. For example, the west African empires (Mali, Songhai, etc) only existed because of the trans-Sarahan trade routes. And as previous posters have mentioned, the Arabs also traded heavily along the eastern coast. So I think it is likely that they will be affected as well.

Great ideas and map, Atom. This is a really interesting thread.
 
Or, if you think it's too ASB, what if a sort of fungus or deadly plant disease had attacked the cereales which were the base of the diet of the people throughout Eurasia during the XV century (wheat, barley and rice)? Let's say this fungus or disease never reaches the Americas (due to the Ocean), Ocenia (for the same reasons) and Subsaharan Africa due to the Sahara.

In the 1950s, John Christopher wrote a sf novel The Death of Grass (in the US, No Blade of Grass) with such a plant disease as the scenario, set in the present.
 
What if this diseaseonly affect people with certain genes? And what if those genes were the Neaderthal-genes spread through all people's descending from non-africans?

That would spare all sub-saharan african states as well as all partly-neanderthal descendants isolated from the others. That is native americans ,most pacific islanders and Siberians. When they reach Eurasia the disease will have died out and everyone can happily re-colonize Eurasia!
 
Getting something that wipes out both Rice and Wheat is going to be difficult. Look at

http://www.umsl.edu/services/kellogg/gpwg/default.htm
The tree there shows that Avena (oats) and Triticum (wheat) are closely related (and both are to Bromus, brome grasses)

However, Oryza (rice) is only distantly related.


If you got something that wiped out all grasses then the ecology of the world would be HUGELY changed. I'm not sure anything short of that would hit both rice and the middle eastern grain crops.

Moreover, if ALL grasses were wiped out, that kills sorghums, millets, maize, teff, etc.
 
Africa would have the best chance. As has already been pointed out Africans already have an iron-age technology, state-level societies, and in Islamic areas at least, literacy and a knowledge of scientific/technological advances from the ancient world. On the other hand, "African" civilization would probably only really flourish after many people spread out of Africa itself and reestablished centers of civilization in Europe, the Mediterranean, South Asia and China. Africa as a continent probably does not have the temperate environment and readily exploitable resources to be the center of an industrial revolution.

Polynesia has the next best chance, although they'd have to get on the ball before the Africans showed up. Polynesians do have complex societies and enviable navigational skills, However, unless I am wrong, polynesian technology was essentially stone age. Also, there was no real metallurgy, no real literacy, relatively few domestic animals, and a somewhat limited suite of domestic crops. Finally, with the possible exception of New Zealand, the Polynesian core area lacked sufficient land area and natural resources to sustain truly large empires. But given time, Polynesian settler societies in Asia might have developed quickly, aided by observation of the abundant ruins and artifacts that they would find in abandoned Chinese cities.

The Americas stand the worst chance. Unlike anyone in the old world, they would have no historical tradition or abandoned civilizations to learn things from. They also lacked useful draught or large domesticated food animals (except in the Andes) and metallurgy (except bronze in a few areas - again mostly in the Andes), and other elements of their technology were absolutely primitive in comparison with people in Africa or even Polynesia. On the other hand, civilizations in Mexico were literate and highly complex. It is possible that if the Americas had been allowed to remain isolated from the old world until the Andean and MesoAmerican traditions came into permanent contact and merged, a reasonable iron age civilization with full literacy, effective animal husbandry, and other attributes of Rome or Celtic Europe became established. Problem is, Islamic Africans with guns, steamships, and conversion zeal would probably get there pretty soon and nip all this in the bud.

As others mentioned, it is possible Andean and Polynesian civilizations might come into contact first, and this would be be a much more equal situation than African contact with the new world. On the other hand, they really had little to offer each other - even less than Mexicans had to offer the Andes. Neither the Andes nor Polynesia had a true written language (I disregard the so-called Easter Island script because nobody really knows what that was or even if it was a true written language), Llamas and pigs are kind of a wash as domestic animals go, and in most other aspects of technology both areas were relatively primitive in comparison with what Africa had to offer. Also, one has to wonder if the whole west-east spread of Polynesian culture would even exist in this world, with huge vacant areas of Asia there for the taking.

You made no mention of Indonesia, with its vibrant mix of Buddhist, Hindu, and Islamic civilization. If the plague never spread there, I could see this becoming the center of global civilization.
 
There will be three (possibly four) entry points to the now vacated Eurasian landmass:
1)From Africa, across the Sahara then though either Gibraltar or the Middle East
2)From Oceana, across Indonesia (presumably New Guinea's highlands are left untouched, yes?)
3)From America across the Bering sea
(4?) It's possible, if unlikely, that Inuit may travel from Greenland to Iceland then to northern Europe.
(Note: Considering Native American watercraft technology at the time of the Event, I consider it unlikely that there will be contact between the two worlds in a reasonable timeframe)

Actually, there are records of Inuit craft reaching as far as Scotland during the Little Ice Age. Considering how the lack of human habitation would lead to a drastic increase in fish and animal stocks, the Inuit would probably find northern Europe a highly desirable location to move to. They'd lose people on the way, but hey.

Africa would have the best chance. As has already been pointed out Africans already have an iron-age technology, state-level societies, and in Islamic areas at least, literacy and a knowledge of scientific/technological advances from the ancient world. On the other hand, "African" civilization would probably only really flourish after many people spread out of Africa itself and reestablished centers of civilization in Europe, the Mediterranean, South Asia and China. Africa as a continent probably does not have the temperate environment and readily exploitable resources to be the center of an industrial revolution.

Does anyone remember the old Pteradon scenario that was like this, except it was meteors destroying Eurasia? In that one, the author argued that while Africa had the comparative technological advantage over the Americas, the populations of the Americans were more dynamic and had a much better geographical base for development. Considering that West African and to an extent Ethiopian prosperity was based on trade with Eurasia, that might be a point. You're right about being the best placed to move back into Eurasia though. Hell, with trade drying up, some of the West African states might just move en masse north across the Sahara, permanently out of range of disease and in the warm Mediterranean sun. Ethiopians might spread north up the now deserted Nile river valley.

Polynesia has the next best chance, although they'd have to get on the ball before the Africans showed up. Polynesians do have complex societies and enviable navigational skills, However, unless I am wrong, polynesian technology was essentially stone age. Also, there was no real metallurgy, no real literacy, relatively few domestic animals, and a somewhat limited suite of domestic crops. Finally, with the possible exception of New Zealand, the Polynesian core area lacked sufficient land area and natural resources to sustain truly large empires. But given time, Polynesian settler societies in Asia might have developed quickly, aided by observation of the abundant ruins and artifacts that they would find in abandoned Chinese cities.

I get the impression they might start with islands like Taiwan, South east Asia and Japan before the big kahuna of China. The Polynesians were stone age, but they have been described as history's most advanced and complex neolithic civilization.

As others mentioned, it is possible Andean and Polynesian civilizations might come into contact first, and this would be be a much more equal situation than African contact with the new world. On the other hand, they really had little to offer each other - even less than Mexicans had to offer the Andes. Neither the Andes nor Polynesia had a true written language (I disregard the so-called Easter Island script because nobody really knows what that was or even if it was a true written language), Llamas and pigs are kind of a wash as domestic animals go, and in most other aspects of technology both areas were relatively primitive in comparison with what Africa had to offer. Also, one has to wonder if the whole west-east spread of Polynesian culture would even exist in this world, with huge vacant areas of Asia there for the taking.

I dunno, there's a fair few useful crops in the Americas, we know that the Polynesians took the sweet potato from there, if there was sustained contact you would likely see a fair amount of trade for corn, amaranth, potatoes, chillis, chocolate, tobacco, etc. And I think you underestimate the value pigs would be to the Incas, and forget that the Polynesians also had chickens as well. I think it could be highly profitable for both sides.

You made no mention of Indonesia, with its vibrant mix of Buddhist, Hindu, and Islamic civilization. If the plague never spread there, I could see this becoming the center of global civilization.

Oh yeah, that's pretty much a game-changer right there. If they survive, they are very well positioned and developed enough to beat everyone.
 
I dunno, there's a fair few useful crops in the Americas, we know that the Polynesians took the sweet potato from there, if there was sustained contact you would likely see a fair amount of trade for corn, amaranth, potatoes, chillis, chocolate, tobacco, etc. And I think you underestimate the value pigs would be to the Incas, and forget that the Polynesians also had chickens as well. I think it could be highly profitable for both sides.
Maize is also a grass...
 
Yes, what time are you expecting this event to happen?

The successful settlement of NZ from Polynesia apparently did not really take hold till about 1300 or so. Prior to that we think it was still exploration and marginal settlement

If the event happened before or about this time it might be that the thrust of Polynesian migration might be redirected. But then again it may not
 
Top