WI: Sahara remains Lush Greens?

Perhaps different civilizations simultaneously develop on the Nile, Congo, and big Niger river thing. They could provide a good basis for a story, wars, alliances, colonization, and exploration of different cultures.
 
On the topic of Rivers, I feel I should point out that it was the desertification that forced people into the River Valleys that lead to the complex civilization in Egypt, so with the Sahara remaining green, it's very possible either only a small civilization develops or their is no Egyptian civilization at all.
 
On the topic of Rivers, I feel I should point out that it was the desertification that forced people into the River Valleys that lead to the complex civilization in Egypt, so with the Sahara remaining green, it's very possible either only a small civilization develops or their is no Egyptian civilization at all.

I'm not sure about this. The Middle East was much greener 10,000 years ago, but civilization still developed in the great river valleys there. The Nile is a great place to be-the soil is super rich due to the flooding deposits, there's plenty of fish, and even if the rest of the Sahara is green the presence of the river will ensure that water is more reliable year-to-year there than in the rest of the Sahara were droughts may still occur.
 
I'm not sure about this. The Middle East was much greener 10,000 years ago, but civilization still developed in the great river valleys there.

Their were no civilizations 10,000 years ago, the first civilizations only started appearing around 5,000 BCE.


The Nile is a great place to be-the soil is super rich due to the flooding deposits, there's plenty of fish, and even if the rest of the Sahara is green the presence of the river will ensure that water is more reliable year-to-year there than in the rest of the Sahara were droughts may still occur.

Their were other large river systems in the Sahara at the time plus multiple Megalakes and numerous smaller lakes.

The Nile is also not a very good place for civilization to develop without external forces pushing people their given it's highly eratic.
 
Their were no civilizations 10,000 years ago, the first civilizations only started appearing around 5,000 BCE.

Let me rephrase-agriculture developed about 10,000 years ago in the fertile crescent of the Middle East, despite the fact that the entire region was much greener than it is today.

Their were other large river systems in the Sahara at the time plus multiple Megalakes and numerous smaller lakes.

The Nile is also not a very good place for civilization to develop without external forces pushing people their given it's highly eratic.

Maybe. The Nile is pretty close to the ME, so it would get the ME crop package before the other regions. Even if the Nile can be erratic, I don't see the other river systems being less erratic even in a green Sahara scenario, and lakes wouldn't create deposits of fertile soil like a river would AFAIK.
 
]7t v
On the topic of Rivers, I feel I should point out that it was the desertification that forced people into the River Valleys that lead to the complex civilization in Egypt, so with the Sahara remaining green, it's very possible either only a small civilization develops or their is no Egyptian civilization at all.

Civilization isn't necessary for a good timeline, perhaps an Arabian empire explores the Sahel's ecosystem and primitive tribes for colonization.
 
A couple of things. I think this would be a great time line. The range of the African animals would be larger, more might be able to spread into the near east and I think that with periodic droughts enough people might cling to the river valleys to start civilizations. This would be as much as anything to protect them from the nomads.
 
So you finally came to the thread I linked you to eh? :cool:
In all fairness, I gave you the idea :p
Another interesting thought. What if the Sahara turns into a desert say, 2,000 years ago instead of 5-6,000 years ago?
There'll probably be civilization in the area at that point, and those people will have to migrate somewhere else, so it might give whoever gets this influx of refugees either a power boost with all the new manpower or a crisis with keeping them fed.
 
On the topic of Rivers, I feel I should point out that it was the desertification that forced people into the River Valleys that lead to the complex civilization in Egypt, so with the Sahara remaining green, it's very possible either only a small civilization develops or their is no Egyptian civilization at all.

I'm not sure about this. The Middle East was much greener 10,000 years ago, but civilization still developed in the great river valleys there. The Nile is a great place to be-the soil is super rich due to the flooding deposits, there's plenty of fish, and even if the rest of the Sahara is green the presence of the river will ensure that water is more reliable year-to-year there than in the rest of the Sahara were droughts may still occur.

it's been speculated that it was the loss of game animals in the ME (gazelles are mentioned a lot) that forced people into agriculture. So, even with a green(er) Sahara, the same forces will be at work in the Fertile Crescent, and agriculture will still develop. It's still likely that the whole idea of farming/herding/civilization will spread as normal to the Nile. Perhaps the same thing will happen across N. Africa; game animals are hunted too intensively as human populations grow, agriculture is adopted far and wide, and livestock herding in the Sahara becomes popular. Even this greener Sahara is still going to be rather dry, so herding may be a better option than farming when you get away from the river valleys...
 
Top