Remove Iberia

>It actually destroys europe. See without Iberia, you don't have the spanish kings who were penpals with Timur The Great, or Tamerlane as they knew him. Without his penpals, Timur has no reason to fuck with the ottoman empire or the other mongols, so they overrun europe.

the fuck

The Iberian Peninsula was, of course, it's own region rich with cultures and tribes, but first becomes globally significant in the conflict between Rome and Carthage (possibly sooner due to Pheonecian trade? Hard to verify historically)

After the first Punic War, Carthage would enter into adventurism in Iberia at the cajoling of Hamilcar Barca, the general who had led Carthages troops in a successful undersupplied guerilla campaign in Sicily during the later half of the first Punic War. Ostensibly the purpose of this adventure was to rebuild Carthages fortune off of the rich resources and plentiful gold in Iberia, and though this was carried out, Barca also used the opportunity to establish a miniature dynasty that associated with and halfway worshiped Barca and his children as local gods. Barcas face was printed on the coins there, and the tribes - which Barca and then later his sons swiftly unified, swore oaths to him and not Carthage.

Then, through a combination of needling Rome and cajoling the Carthaginian Senate, Hannibal (by now the ruling Barca after the deaths of his father and elder brother during the pacification of Iberia) instigated the second Punic War, the history of which is profoundly famous and hugely influential on the trajectory of Rome and history of the world.

America is now chinese.

If iberia was gone, would important islands like Sicily even exist?

>Remove Iberia
>How would it affect the climate of europe?

To be frank I'm more interested in this than any political wanking.

Ha, the ding-dongs were never going to discover the Americas (and they never did).

They'd probably remain stone age a lot longer until the Scandinavians decided to go back.

And then France and the UK get into it too and kick out the Scandis.

I am 99% sure it would buttrape its climate

A second and more decisive conflict between Carthage and Rome was probably inevitable, due to the way the first Punic War had ended with neither side being exactly beaten or satisfied, though Rome was ostensibly the Victor. What is in question is what form that conflict would have taken and what the outcome would have been.

In our history, Barca came within a tooth skin of ending Rome forever. Only the sheer bloody persistence of Rome and the delaying tactics of Fabian, as well as indecision from both the Carthage Senate and Hannibal himself via the failure of his divide and conquer strategy saved Rome from destruction. This near pass with death, and the rise of Scipio Africanus, contributed to a general sense of Roman indestructibility and the rise of the cult of personality around famous rockstar Roman generals, which would itself contribute to the death of the republic and the rise of Imperialism.

Simply put, Rome got wrecked, came back and won, and their victory put them in control of the whole of the western Mediterranean, setting them up for their eventual dominance of Greece and then the world.

Would Rome have defeated a resurgant Carthage? Could Carthage have even resurged without Iberia? One possibility was Carthage instead pushing into inland Africa seeking new wealth. What could Carthage have accomplished with a large land stake in northern Africa? What affect would a possibly more unified and stable Africa had in the world? Arguably, the continents complete lack of unity has been a huge offset to the tremendous amount of resources it has. Would we have seen an actual African empire on the scale of the European and Mediterranean superpowers? In B4 /pol/

It'd make the Med much less calm and make Europe overall warmer, wouldn't it?

Stormier med = more fragmented Greece, fragmented Greece = unchecked rise of the Person empire?

+ Warmer Europe = rise of Gauls?

The chinese noticed the existance of america and australia, just never cared to go.
And scandinavians gave up on westward exploration after Thorvaldsson's "it's green and fertile, really!" little prank.

So it's possible that we have the mostly land bound Gaulic Empire with a capital on either the river Seine or Rhine, the Baltic and North Sea trade based empire of the Gaelic-Norse ruled from Sjælland and from the east comes the Persian Empire founded by Darius the Great, conqueror of the barbarian Greeks.

Only thing recognizable would be Egypt because at least the Nile would remain.

So basically, Spain ruined Europe forever just by existing

Good to know

Muslim empires would have no easy access to europe, no medieval jihads could occur and thus no crusades as a response.

Free access to mediterranean sea from the atlantic, britan economy would improve tenfold and setle an even stronger empire.

On the other hand, no flamenco, no paella and no siesta.

>No paella and no siesta
Shit world to live

Given the altered climate we might not see such great forests growing in Europe.

There might be way more grassland.

Mammoths might have survived and been domesticated. Might have been domesticated by the Neanderthals.

The Great Gaulic Empire might be predominantly Neanderthal or humans with way more Neanderthal in them.

Given the lack of a Roman Empire forming, there would be no Byzantium. No Byzantium no Nestorians. No Nestorians no Mohammed.

There would be no jihads.

The big religion of the East would be Zoroastrian or something like it. North would still be the great grasslands. China would still be a thing (maybe but maybe not unified) so there would still be a Silk Road, there would still be the Mongolian Hordes and possibly there would still be Tengri or something not unlike Tengrism.

>The Great Gaulic Empire might be predominantly Neanderthal or humans with way more Neanderthal in them.
All humans have shitloads of neanderthal in them. We didn't outcompete them, we bred them out. We were superior at fucking

>the most literal "Humanity, Fuck Yeah!"

>All humans have shitloads of neanderthal in them. We didn't outcompete them, we bred them out. We were superior at fucking

Humans breathe rocket fuel and piss deadly poison.

It wouldn't.

This isn't Veeky Forums related.

The Crusades, as with any historical event, have many reasons behind them, including the Popes using them as a way to unite Europe under their authority. Its likely they would still occur in some way.

Rather than Chinese, there's signs of contacts between South America and Polinesia.

Also, remember Columbus was a mercenary, so if Spain didn't pay his voyage, somebody else could.

A huge geological change like that and you stupid fucks are still talking about Rome, Carthage, Gauls, Tamerlane, etc.? Absolutely fucking pathetic.

No Iberian peninsular changes EVERYTHING. The Med is entirely different with different salinity, currents, weather, species, etc. as the western half is completely open to the Atlantic. Climates and biomes are fundamentally changed on both sides of the Med. North Africa west of Tunis will see more oceanic storms coming in directly off the Atlantic changing the size, shape, & nature of the climate there and the desert beyond.changed. The distribution of plants and animal will be changed which in turn will change how H. sapiens, H. neanderthalensis, and all the rest migrated.

The changes would be profound and the knock on effects would accumulate well before our species evolved let alone before settled agriculture began.

But stupid fucks like and others want to talk about Rome fighting Carthage in the 2nd Punic War. Absolutely fucking pathetic.

Call it a setting.

No hot girls, a world not worth living in.

I remeber this guy from the last thread

REEE WHY AREN'T PEOPLE CONSIDERING THE INCALCULABLE AFFECTS THIS WOULD HAVE ON PRE-RECORDED HISTORY WE HAVE NO CONTEXT FOR REEEE

No Arabian Nights, because you know, when your medieval setting needs a token exotic culture, it's down in the south

The Moors would probably try to invade through Southern Italy like madmen instead

REEE REEE REEE I WANT TO IGNORE LOGICAL EFFECTS OF PROFOUND GEOLOGICAL CHANGES BECAUSE I AM TOO STUPID AND/OR LAZY TO EVEN THINK ABOUT THEM REE REE REE

what you just said means that all of human history changes forever. Meaning we would have no way to know what would happen
Sometimes people just want to have fun satan

Alright, so list some of those changes.

Mudslimes infest France.

Oh, wait.

How so?
A lot more people lived in france at the tim and the moors weren't able to take all of iberia by themselves

Pro-tip: Don't reply to /pol/tards outside of /pol/!

the fuck traditional game could this even be

The game is "don't be a newfag"

Looks like you'll need to reroll.

He's not wrong though, /pol/ or not.

Diplomacy. Remove Iberia and France goes from one of the most powerful nations to one of the shittiest. You'll spend the entire game in a deadlock with Germany, Italy and maybe the UK with no options to expand, being confined to 3 command centers until you're put out of your misery.

>Meaning we would have no way to know what would happen

Exactly and it's actually a bonus, although you're too stupid to realize it.

Rather than derp on unimaginatively about how Rome would be changed, you get to start fresh. The page is blank waiting for you to fill it in. The only trouble is you're too fucking retarded to "draw" anything new and instead must mindlessly copy what history else has already done while adding superficial changes.

You're like the kids who can't free build with Legos. All they can do is mindlessly copy the picture on the box.

With the western Med open to the Atlantic, the northern shore of Africa will be more fertile, the Sahara would be smaller & relatively wetter, the south coast of "France" and west coast of "Italy" will see more storms, Atlantic size tides, etc., and the eastern Med will see higher tides, more storms, etc.

Following just that, you can see where nre fertile lands would appear and existing fertile lands would change. The changes to the nature of the Med would make early seaborne transport more dangerous and thus less used. Cut back on the "ease" of sailing the Med and any "Phoenicia" analog would be smaller, less wealthy, or may not exist at all. Without easy coast wise trade, the Aegean/Greece won't develop in any way like it did. With fertile lands to their west, Egypt no longer has a protected border in that direction.

The changes are easy enough to follow IF you can bothered to actually think.

You're right. The problem with alternate history is that the further back you go, the more changes. Changing geography goes back so far it predates even the earliest civilizations. So it's not just "instead of X Y or Z happens", it could even mean "civilization A never exists".

He's not wrong, the French and in particular the Spanish kept contact with Timur and he had great relations with them, eventually leading to support against the Ottomans. Huh.

Why wouldn't they exist? Iberia really didn't have any influence on the founding and rise of Rome. If anything it was a hindrance.

>The problem with alternate history is that the further back you go, the more changes.

Precisely, and that's what the Usual Morons in these threads can't quite understand. Even worse, they're so stupid they believe it's a PROBLEM rather than an OPPORTUNITY.

Look at bleating about how they have "no way" to know what would happen instead of realizing that he could determine what would happen. The world becomes a blank page, but they're too stupid, ignorant, unimaginative, or simply afraid to fill it in themselves. Someone else must provide the lines they'll safely color within just like good little cubicle farm drones.

Absolutely fucking pathetic.

>all this bullshit

How would it affect the climate and history of the world?

>Why wouldn't they exist?
Many reasons, but only one of many possibilities (which already ignores climate) is that instead of expanding towards non-existant Iberia, the Carthaginians expand into the boot of Italy much earlier, or expand into Gaul and effectively surround the Italian peninsula before Rome can even rise to prominence.

And, once again, that's ignoring the influence of climate. I'm no geologist so for all I know removing Iberia could flood the Italian peninsula.

The creator of this map extirpated all tumors except the ones in America.

>The creator of this map extirpated all tumors
>The Arabian Peninsula still exists
How about no?

A few other things - the main trade chokepoint between Northern Africa and Southern Europe becomes Tunis-Sicily, which would cause our alt!Mediterranean to become sort of a sea past that point rather than an ocean.

Given our warmer Sahara, now we might have something of a naval power in the region - and that alt!Tunis (Sinut, why not) now comes into play against the Hittites, the Egyptians and the many peoples of Mesopotamia.

Meanwhile, on Europe, Greece and Southern Italy (at the very least Sicily) are colonized by Sinut, most likely. The Sea Peoples become the Northern People, so the end of the Bronze Age comes when Northern folk push from the Rhine and the Danube and really any river North of Naples to Anatolia and Greece and Southern Italy, which sparks a whole bunch of wars in the region between whoever owns Macedonia at the time, Sunit, the Hittites and Egypt. And that's when the Persian Empire becomes a thing, at the end of our Iron Age.

You'll probably want to take a nap before you learn where this map is from.

The Siberian Sea alone means fewer or no "horse peoples" so the constant migrations that routinely fucked with Europe, the Middle East, India, and China from the Bronze Age collapse on down either don't occur or have a smaller effect.

The idea of a group of maritime cultures in central Siberia (!!!) which are also essentially landlocked because of the Arctic ice pack is a fascinating one.

The chain of large islands between Africa and S. America could easily lead to earlier and steady contact between the two hemispheres. Among hundreds of other things, that would dial back the virulence of the historical disease exchanges.

Removing Iberia would most likely just make the Med colder rather than cause higher sea levels.

Also, Carthage had Rome surrounded during the second Punic war and they still lost.

Bronze Age, not Iron Age. Damnit.

Fuck you for making me google it.

>routinely fucked with Europe
Or, in fact, settled it, not counting Basques and their extinct bretheren

Great thinking, user, and much better than "Rome & Carthage herpity derpity doo!"

To all of the Usual Morons in this thread, are you beginning to see what can be done?

I wouldn't have known if I hadn't googled it. I guess this is something to do with the asteroids that hit Earth in the setting's past?

Very true. Whether you an invader or a settler only depend on the perspective.

Care to clue the rest of us in?

Yes, you go into the picture and fucking google it yourself, it's the fucking first result.

Steven Universe you lazy faggot.

>there's a batman miniatures game
This better not be gay user or I'll blame my disappointment on you

It's pretty gud
The miniatures are gorgeous

I'm honestly kind of stuck here - what with the end being a bunch of northern barbarians and Persians sandwiching anywhere from Tunis to Egypt. I feel that one thing that might matter is that it might barely be a Bronze Age given the difficulties between getting tin from the British Isles to the region. Then things get fuzzy. It's incredibly unclear, really. The Celts and tin trade are gone, so that might be the advantage for our northern peoples. The Bosphorus might be the divide between Northern regions and Persia, but I'm trying to figure out how an empire would develop by then, which would be the only thing capable of stifling Persian expansion.

>The entire New World is conquered by Sweedes.
>laughingdane.gif

AFRICA:

The new world is found far earlier, as portuguese navigators travel down africa more quickly and follow the archipelago to ilhas cabral and south america. The cold benguela current is stopped by the islands, cooling down southern africa enough to allow more complex civilization (if it's true that the stuggle to survive the cold creates innovation). The islands of the pereira sea are the chokepoint between europe and the indian ocean / asia, so it's possible that a naval empire may form in the more temperate climate and regulate trade ships passing through. This would mean that the europeans end up less successful, because they may have trouble getting to the spices of the indies.

>REE SU IS SO FUCKING TERRIBLE EUGH

Yup, that's the reaction I expected, which is why I told him to go take a nap first.

A big boy probably could have googled it all on his own.

>Also, Carthage had Rome surrounded during the second Punic war and they still lost.

Wrong

Portuguese explorers get wrecked by the country that now exists in the Atlantic, a decent sized civ finds South America in the Bronze Age. Cross exchange and ideas change humanity forever

I often wonder what might have happened if africa had been further away from eurasia. Long enough to prevent modern humans from leaving the continent until early ships. Would we have good records of others in the homo genus? Would the megafauna still be around? I suppose I should ask Veeky Forums sometime.

Sea currents are much more tumultuous. It warps the weather patterns and geography so much that it's doubtful that the new Mediterranean Sea becomes a cradle of civilization.

>portuguese navigators

While I know that Portugal is on that faggy millennial cartoon's map, the idea that a "Portugal" or "Portuguese" would exist requires a profound level of idiocy - something which isn't in short supply among the creators of that particular show.

What if you swapped all the land for sea, and sea for land?
>African Ocean
>Pacifican continent
>Great Islands
>Hawaiian Lakes

Ah, but interesting problems are good problems?

Re: Bronze - Do you know that west Africa didn't have a Bronze Age? They went straight to iron. Could "scarce" tin mean this world's Med & Middle East does the same?

Re: Persia expansion - Communication issues will "impose" limits even if the surrounding cultures cannot.

Re: Metals again - Roman mining & refining in Iberia was so extensive for so long that the effects can be seen in ice core samples in Greenland. How will this world's Europe - Med develop without that extensive Iberian metals trove?

...

>No mid-Atlantic mountain range (or valley, depending on if you just inverted land and water or actually mirrored elevations across sea level)
7/10

Just imagine the level of piracy that island bridge would have attracted

That would depends entirely on the amount of trade.

>muh cold means innovantion

holy shit learn some history. civilisation developed in warm areas, such as in the middle east and near the medditeranean. apart from rome and greece, all of europe was in tribal groups until christianity forcibly converted them. learn some history.

>no siesta

as if taking a short nap after eating was something really hard to figure out

-spaniard

>user has opinion
>call him a faggot
>"xdxDXDDXXXXD U SO REEEEEE"
I expected something interesting from the source, not /co/ and /pol/ bait.

>so if Spain didn't pay his voyage, somebody else could
You mean like a certain rich african kingdom, who conquered another certain rich african kingdom who already wanted to know what was on the other side of the world, and who already sent one such voyage out already? Who already had the astrological maps ready thanks to extensive trade with Middle Eastern and Italian scholars?
Sonhgai claims America is what I'm saying.

>Big ass hole in Russia
This is the map of the Steven Universe World, isn't it?

I like your thinking.

I honestly think that this leads to the Danube as the limit for the Persians, and our first real European civilization starts developing in the Danube, probably near what today is Romania and Hungary, but likely to fit in Austria too. You're likely to have a separate civilization developing in the North of Italy, what with the Po river and the reconquest of the South of Italy probably creating a kingdom of its own. That one probably gets eaten up through Slovenia by our Danubians. In fact, it's likely that those Danubians conquer most of Central and Western Europe, maybe even reaching up to the North of Germany. The constant need to keep innovating versus the gigantic persian empire and getting a stronger foothold on trade on the Mediterannean means that they probably push into Sunit, and the world's basically divided into two now - the Persians and the Danubians. Without Iberian metal troves, I reckon we now start tackling the Gauls, or rather the Celts as a whole, which I assume would have united and also lost the war - they had plenty of metals and their metalworking was up there, so I reckon that upon the conquest of France and Britain our Danubians take up on that mantle and those are the areas that overdevelop mining and refining.

Meanwhile the Persians probably expand into Egypt and the Levant, developing a strong population, what with the grain.

The two have tense moments until they actually get into a war, where I'm entirely unsure. The Persians likely have superior population, but depending on the status of mining and refining as well as military knowledge the Danubians might be ahead. The Persians probably have developed a style well suited for fighting in both very plain areas and very hilled areas, which makes me think we'll see plenty of chariots in that area.

The Danubians likely develop a light foot style to warfare - the idea of winning a ton of small battles to win the whole war rather than a series of major battles. 1/2

Next time, read the whole thing before posting

The Danubians as a force are probably better armed, not due to being ahead in technology, but due to being able to suit an entire army with high quality iron weapons, which I doubt the Persians would have quite managed.

If the Danubians are lead by a particularly good general, they might just win this and create the notion of indirect warfare - waging war on the enemy's ability to wage war. With the Persians retreating from the Balkans, we now have an empire that extends through basically all of Western, Central and Southern Europe, plus the regions of Libya. Interestingly enough, this creates a scenario of basically two powers controlling all trade in Europe and Asia up to India. Naturally both are going to collapse eventually, but we're basically on the start of the Roman Empire historically, and we've already diverged quite a bit from the origin, so that's interesting. I've no idea where to go to next, though. 2/2

Excellent stuff, simply excellent stuff.

Hopefully the fuckwits in next goelogical POD thread will remember your posts and stop to think before posting some idiocy about how "No African continent" will mean that Hitler has more panzers to use in Russia.