1
$\begingroup$

enter image description here

Throughout pre-Roman history, North Africa and the Middle East had its fair share of civilizations--not just the popular Egyptians, but also the Carthaginians, the Sumerians, the Assyrians, the Babylonians and the Hittites. The reason that there were so many civilizations in so small area sizes is simple--they built their cities in deserts! Even on the Mediterranean coast, the environments in Israel, Syria, Lebanon, Jordan and Iraq are so extreme that farming and irrigation would require an extra degree of ingenuity.

Things are no better off in the Sahara, either. Highs average around 104 degrees Fahrenheit, it is sandy mixed with rocky and the Nile, as far as I know, is the only river that can cut through the desert rock and sand and to the Mediterranean.

In this alternate Africa, things are a little different. For starters, North Africa is 100% rock, which means none of the sand dunes that made Arabia or the Sahara so notorious.

enter image description here

North Africa has its own series of Great Lakes. (Though this map does not take rivers into account, and Lake Chad, in this scenario, is not of an accurate shape or area size.)

enter image description here

A more accurate Lake Chad. (Again, the map does not take rivers into account.)

enter image description here

In this alternate Earth, Arabia is a mere extension of northeastern Africa, erasing both the Red Sea and the Gulf of Aden off the map. Also, the mountains are arranged differently. The Atlas Mountains still stand by the Sahara’s northwestern coast, but they are taller — the tallest peak being 21,810 feet above the level of the sea, 1500 feet taller than Denali. Outlining the coasts of Angola, Namibia, South Africa, Mozambique, Tanzania, Kenya, Somalia, Yemen and Oman is a range of volcanic mountains called the Aden Bahçesi. Its highest peak stands 24,341 feet above sea level, 1500 feet higher than Aconcagua back home. All of Africa’s rivers originate from those two mountain ranges.

Now let's take the possible effects of civilization into account. Would these changes create larger civilizations, perhaps even full-blown empires (at least before the Macedonians and Romans marched along)?

$\endgroup$

closed as too broad by TrEs-2b, Hohmannfan, Vincent, Thucydides, Aify Oct 16 '16 at 4:45

Please edit the question to limit it to a specific problem with enough detail to identify an adequate answer. Avoid asking multiple distinct questions at once. See the How to Ask page for help clarifying this question. If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.

  • 1
    $\begingroup$ There's no telling, this is too broad, again... $\endgroup$ – TrEs-2b Oct 15 '16 at 21:00
  • $\begingroup$ Can't you at least TRY? $\endgroup$ – JohnWDailey Oct 15 '16 at 21:38
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Your version of history is confused. The Assyrians and Sumerians lived in the Middle East, not North Africa. As well, the climate was much different even into Roman times (North Africa was forested, for example), as well as the infrastructure (the ancient Middle East was criss crossed with irrigation systems, many which were destroyed by the Muslim conquest in the first millennium AD). And outside of that, the question is too broad. try researching the real history of a small sub region and then ask or speculate what the changes would do there to start... $\endgroup$ – Thucydides Oct 16 '16 at 3:48
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Sorry, but no. Africa is an entirely separate continent from Eurasia. $\endgroup$ – Thucydides Oct 16 '16 at 4:01
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @Thucydides: I'd note that not only was the climate of North Africa & the Middle East different in the past, it was largely human activity that was (and still is) responsible for the changes. Also, many of the civilizations mentioned were separated not just by geography, but by time. $\endgroup$ – jamesqf Oct 16 '16 at 4:11