WIP: unnamed Earh-like planet

[Durakken]

First of all, how exactly does the model you suggested match with the simplified progression of societies from bands to states?

I think I know what your asking... For a very long time cities only held the area around it. The way that we get beyond City-States is likely more along the lines of every more complex unions and leagues of governmental bodies being agreed to.
We think of Greece as single state, but really it is a group of leagues of city-states. My thought is that each level up got less specific and more generalized laws that each step below agreed. Basically, something like how we have today with the various states and unions. We now call that UN of of Greece Leagues the Greek Culture, but it really is no different than something like the UN to the world today, just at a different scale. That didn't all happen due to war. Some, or even a majority of it was due to having to interact with these other people. So I'm pretty sure that is how to go from City to what we consider a State now adays.

So each red dot/town would be the settlement of a politically independent tribe, but then some of them would become chiefdoms (cities, in green) and gain influence over other tribes/towns, eventually getting more complex and one chiefdom defeating the others and becoming a proto state.

You're sorta missing the reason why those green ones exist. They're red, but become green because the other red ones get funneled through them...

Questions:
- Settlements only develop in one side of the river?

Don't know really, but given what I've seen generally towns build bridges if the river is small enough or the edges are high enough to let the boats go through. Otherwise I'd think, more or less they do stick to one side in a general area because you're not going to jump back and forth between sides and it probably isn't the safes thing to do to have a city competing on the direct other side of the river. One side would likely eventually get destroyed, or peace would come about and the two would merge in most cases.

- With so many ramification on my river, how do you settle a hierarchy? Which crossroad (G, H, I) is more important? Which end (A, B, C) is the most logical dominant? Is it F once trade with the coast becomes key?

Let's assume there is no sea trade at the moment...

G controls access to A and C to H.
And G controls access to H to A and C
So if we're dealing with just those 4 G is the most powerful. It is the Governor of the area, literally. It Governs the flow of trade.

you have the same situation with B, I, H, and G, but with G and H's positions reversed.

I controls E and F to H


So if you take these as 3 seperate systems H, I, and G are the Governors of their respective areas which makes them the Capital, because trade, power, etc runs through them.

But it becomes fairly obvious where the lynch pin is. H controls access from G to I, as well as to B meaning that it controls trade from 1 major city to another.

Looking at it, perhaps the easiest way to figure it out is this...
All non-crossroad major cities give them a +1. So A, B, C, F are all +1s
If one of the above major cities has to cross through a major city to get to another, add +1 to the one it crosses through... A must go through G to get to C or H so G gets +1. C must go through G to get to A or H, so add another 1 to make it +2.
That process will give you G and I a +2, and H a +1.
Now, any major city that a +2 has to go through to get through to get to another add 2 to in the same way as above... This gives H a +3.

The roads could change this balance as well because any city that is a 3 to 5 day walk away from water is safe enough to risk and thus eventually will be done rather than going down and around in various areas, like between E & H which is roughly a 2 to 3 day walk if you just walk straight there rather than follow the river. Traders would still use the river though if they can because they can carry more and it is likely roughly the same travel time (roughly speaking by boat takes 1/2 the time by walking) though I'm uncertain given that the currents of the river might slow them. But anyways, this new path way would add to the control of the area by H.

I hope that helps and explains it a bit more.

[Pixie]

I have to stand by gilgamec in defending the book Guns, Germs and Steel. I'm a big fan of Jared Diamond since I first read that book , and he has two more books that I consider awesome for anyone interested in worldbuilding.

In Guns, Germs and Steel, Diamond's main argument is that a small difference in the environment may lead to enormous differences in rate of civilization and in enormous advantages when two groups of people face off. That's what made me pay so much attention to tectonics and climate in my world, so that I can map those differences in the environment.
(For example, I was reading about the bronze age recently and how making bronze demands a source of tin, which was, in the bronze age, the mineral cassiterite, which only occurs in certain places in the world, which is a very significant environmental difference from place A to place B)

[waldronate]

Some general rules of thumb regarding river settlements is that they tend to form:
1) at the lowest fordable point on a river
2) the highest ship-navigable point on a river
3) any other major shift in mode of transport (e.g. falls that require portage for smaller vessels or a switch from ocean-going to river vessels)


Every town needs a reason to exist in a political/market network. Just bare subsistence won't do much in a larger economy except for providing levies in a feudal society. A basic village might also be the local harvester of a specific kind of herb or wood in a local forest, perhaps providing vegetables or meat to a larger town market. A larger village might have a blacksmith, and one on a trade route might provide an inn or tavern. Towns will have markets and merchants, possibly money changers. The largest towns will have luxury goods like arms, armor, and jewelers.

The merging of two rivers won't necessarily produce a town unless there's a reason to do so. Similarly, a river mouth won't necessarily produce a town if there's a better spot within a partial day's travel (a navigable river up to a rapids with a ford at it will generate a town almost always). Settlements will be equally likely on both sides of river unless there's a good reason not to, such as impassable cliffs or hostile natives.

Market networks (towns of different sizes in an area) will develop over time. I recommend starting from an empty landscape with transport cost modifiers (easier along rivers, noting fords and impediments to navigation, fords (and later on, bridges) allow land trails to cross rivers). Then the immigrants will arrive and move at their normal rate (say, 10 miles per day) modified by equipment and terrain. If this sounds suspiciously like a boardgame, it's because many boardgames are based on the premise of moving into unclaimed territory to find resources and produce population. With a few tens of hours of work, you can create a map with resources and terrain marked, and a set of basic rules for movement, production, founding towns (usually population and production modifier), road building (movement modifier), and so on. Gather a few friends and play the game a few times (recording the map when you stop) and you will have a map that's quite plausible because it's based on market forces.

[groovey]

Pixie, indeed I had forgotten about Diamonds "Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed", that's definitely on my plans to get, but which other of his books do you refer to for world-building?

waldronate, I get what you're saying, but I have no idea of how to reflect that on a map or in a board game! I don't' even have friends to play with! I'll have to resign to do more research.

Durakken, thanks for expanding on that! What I realize though is that I need to do more reading, and I'm working on it.

[Pixie]

The third book is "The World Until Yesterday" - it's not as much about civilizations evolving or disappearing, but more into how varied can cultures be and how centralized states and the rule of the law evolve as population numbers and weaponry evolve. It has a lot of examples from primitive cultures which are still being studied today, like the tribal highlands of Papua, Botswana bushmen or Amazonian tribes, and it compares their ways with the ways of the pre-industrial western world and with our days.
I think it's a great book on anthopology for the non-anthropologist like myself.

In the meanwhile, I have to say thank you.. you shifted the discussion on this thread from climate/landmasses to history and that gave me a huge motivational push to work on something I had on the backburner for a while - the early history of my world (rise of agriculture to late bronze age and writing) - I am currently reading and working on it, thanks to you . Gracias amigo!

[Akubra]

Wow, groovey (and the others), you are moving ahead at full speed! Great! All this might give me some ideas too! I still have to thank you for your reply and ideas for my own world some days ago.
It's been a bit difficult to be online the past week, and I'm not sure about the near future. But I am sure to re-read this very interesting discussion above when I can.
Cheers - Akubra

[Charerg]

On the subject of which cities will grow into world powers, remember to take into consideration that trade isn't always everything. If you look at a society like Sparta, they had relatively limited trade. Nevertheless, Sparta rose to be the dominant city in southern Peloponnese. For Rome, one might say that the rules provided by waldronate apply, as it rose at the lowest fordable point over the Tiber. But one must also take into account the rich vulcanic soil of central Italy, and point out that western Italy receives more rain than eastern Italy, all of which were factors that helped in the build-up of a large population density in the Etruria-Latium-Campania area. Also, the Romans didn't necessarily start out as a trade power in the same sense as the Carthaginians or other predominantly naval trade powers of the era. Although Rome was and is in the happy position of being the crossroads between Etruria and Campania and probably a major trade center as a result, it was during its early times a land power that was more famed for its militarism than its mercantilism.

And some cultures, such as steppe nomads, can have a tremendous impact on history, despite the fact that they have barely any cities!

[groovey]

Pixie, I'm the one always in debt to you, so thank you for your patience and time.

Wow I really hope you'll feel safe sharing your results, because I think many of us will be interested and could learn a thing or two, and might even start a very interesting discussion. Will you try to apply the results into a map/s? Or just do it in writing?

Akubra, as always, very nice to hear from you and I'm following with interest your journey to solve the issue with scaling and making sure different cuts of the world adjoin. I'm dealing with this too with no ideas. But heck, first I have to figure out how to translate rough terrain features of a world scale, into regional maps. I have no idea where to start. I do like your idea of leaving bands on the sides of the maps and copying to the next one as a start guide.

Welcome Charerg! Just yesterday I was reading about Sparta, its origins and development in a Ancient History manual I got when I was getting my History degree a few year ago (boy I got some awesome hardcore books, mostly based on archeological findings, from that era, who would have told me then years later they'd help me world-building).

From what I've read, Sparta was in a quite isolated (by mountain ranges) area with limited trade. Its economy was mostly based in exploiting the resources of the area, so they were mostly autosuficient. In fact, Sparta was in origin 4 settlements, that controlled the other settlements on the area as some kind of serfs (it's a bit more complex than that). Since they were so focused on the military aspect, it seems it was those settlements they subjugated that sustained the Spartan economy. So yeah, their development had nothing to do with trade.

However, in the same book, that starts in the Fertile Cresent around 5.000 BC, when going on each culture or power over time, trade is usually considered a key element on the development of their original polis, from which I get, it allowed their owners to have the means to expand and become dominant trough war of diplomacy.

So trade itself it's not what makes most of History's empire happen in Ancient times, or at least I wouldn't say it like that, but it does seem to be key in the origins to become polis with expansionist ambitions and I guess later on to fund the military expansions, but it might no be essential? As long as an empire controls lots of land to tax on, etc.

I mean, one of the main motivators to expand in the Ancient empires is to control new resources centers sure, which favors trade in the end, but trade itself doesn't seem to be the main motivator for expansion? I don't know, I still have to do more reading. Perhaps it's just a matter of terminology, but for me war to control resources is not the same as war to improve our trade, unless you're a Venice type of power.

I still have to get to Rome (in that book), which I did study about at college, but not from the point of view of worldbuilding, so I need to study the case from another perspective.

[Durakken]

Military subjugation to control resources is the same as trade. It's not so much "trade" that does it, but the flow of resources. If you can govern a resource then you will automatically rise to a superior position to those that are at any of the other points.
If you are over a large deposit of let's call it "Militarium" then you can either hold onto that or send it out, either way that "Militarium" will cause you be more powerful and more able to project power, ie govern, over more than other areas.

Here's the thing though... regardless of how much "Militarium" you have or how many other resources you have naturally around you that you can exploit, there is a limit and there is only so many kinds resources that can appear in the same area so unless you are at trade hub you will automatically fall as a governor of lower order than the trade hub most likely, because trade hubs get stuff from further away and a more varied assortment while simple projection of power to draw those things in can only go so far and it is far less reliable.

It's really kinda simple... If I told you that I have 2 businesses. They both produce lots of gold, but business A produces between 0 and 2,000 tons of gold monthly where as B produces between 750 and 1250 monthly. And then I tell you I have this project that requires 12,000 tons of gold produced in 1 year. I ask you to decide which business should I employ to produce the gold i need for my business? personally. I'm going to go with B, because worst case scenario I end up with 9,000 tons and have to delay the project for 4 months. Worst case scenario with A... I never get the project done. Best case scenarious are that with B I get it done in 10 months and A I get done in 6 months.

When you're talking about civilization resources and growth of empire... 6 months to never is a horrible position to put yourself in, especially when the other option is 10 to 16 months. That stability allows you to go "ok I know this is coming so I can make these plans" where as instability is really just a crapshoot as to if you have what you need to grow. That's difference between a crossroads/trade hub city and a Projection of power type city. It's the same reason why we're no longer hunter gatherers. Because when you can ensure a stable stream of what you need, it's better to rely on that rather than hope you win the lottery with the maybe never sources.

Also a thought just occured to me... This might be the reason for the difference in Asian vs European state sizes. China produced everything it needed for a long time (not sure if they still do) and so they continuously exported renewables they didn't really care about and drained the economies of the rest of the world of gold. In other words, they had/have a steady stream of natural resources from nature itself and therefor are able to project power over a large area and maintain a singular governing body overall, unreliant on trade. Europe on the other hand relied heavily on trade to get what they want which caused different bottle necks to occur and thus different governing powers to growing in those areas, creating new nations. So it might be the cases that Trade rich cultures have more nations and Resource rich cultures have fewer...or something like that. Just a thought ^.^

[Pixie]

Pixie,
Wow I really hope you'll feel safe sharing your results, because I think many of us will be interested and could learn a thing or two, and might even start a very interesting discussion. Will you try to apply the results into a map/s? Or just do it in writing?

I'll share them.
But I have been a little short on time to complete what I'm doing. So far it is all is draft form. I am in the process of drafting maps to show the appearance and expansion of key transitions from stone age to modernity
- expansion of agriculture
- expansion of horse/cattle domestication
- expansion of bronze working
- appearance and expansion of systems of writing
Basically, a sort of historical atlas. And it has been fun to do it, I've been already surprised by what "must have happened" a few times... but I'll post it soon on another thread - don't want to hijack this one