WI ASBs separate Europe from Asia and Africa by 100-200 mile minimums in most places & down to 50 in

[raharris1973]

WI ASBs separate Europe from Asia and Africa by 100-200 mile minimums in most places & down to 50 in the Caucasus in 700 AD?

Do better moats, make better neighbors, at least for longer periods of time?

See map:
www.flickr.com/photos/22187058@N03/53321947869/in/dateposted/



Will Spain and Sicily be pretty safe from Moorish/Saracen invasion? Will the isolated portion of the Caliphate's Caucasus provinces, inhabited by Persians, Armenians, and Georgians, be pretty vulnerable to Khazar conquest, local revolt, or both? Will Byzantine Asia Minor, further away from Constantinople, Greece, and Thrace, be more vulnerable to assaults from the Caliphate over the next century or two, compared with OTL? Or will Muslim conquest of that region still have to await migratory reinforcement by Turks. 

Will Europe run out of nomadic invaders earlier - maybe miss out on some of its Magyars, or if not them, at least miss out on some of its various and sundry Cumans, Polovtsy, Pechenegs, Patzinaks, Tatars, and, of course, Mongols, over the next 500-700 years with the water barrier around the Ural Mountains extending from the Mediterranean, Black and Caspian Seas to the Arctic Ocean?

Alternatively, how would world geopolitics go down from 700 AD, if world geography were altered by ASBs to do this, detaching all Europe and Siberia and Central Asia from the rest of Asia? 

See map:

www.flickr.com/photos/22187058@N03/53322051580/in/dateposted/



Another map, with the same concept as the OP, just a few centuries later in history, at 1350 AD
www.flickr.com/photos/22187058@N03/53321831068/in/dateposted/

[stevep]

Nov 10, 2023 3:11:50 GMT raharris1973 said:

WI ASBs separate Europe from Asia and Africa by 100-200 mile minimums in most places & down to 50 in the Caucasus in 700 AD?

Do better moats, make better neighbors, at least for longer periods of time?

See map:
www.flickr.com/photos/22187058@N03/53321947869/in/dateposted/



Will Spain and Sicily be pretty safe from Moorish/Saracen invasion? Will the isolated portion of the Caliphate's Caucasus provinces, inhabited by Persians, Armenians, and Georgians, be pretty vulnerable to Khazar conquest, local revolt, or both? Will Byzantine Asia Minor, further away from Constantinople, Greece, and Thrace, be more vulnerable to assaults from the Caliphate over the next century or two, compared with OTL? Or will Muslim conquest of that region still have to await migratory reinforcement by Turks. 

Will Europe run out of nomadic invaders earlier - maybe miss out on some of its Magyars, or if not them, at least miss out on some of its various and sundry Cumans, Polovtsy, Pechenegs, Patzinaks, Tatars, and, of course, Mongols, over the next 500-700 years with the water barrier around the Ural Mountains extending from the Mediterranean, Black and Caspian Seas to the Arctic Ocean?

Alternatively, how would world geopolitics go down from 700 AD, if world geography were altered by ASBs to do this, detaching all Europe and Siberia and Central Asia from the rest of Asia? 

See map:

www.flickr.com/photos/22187058@N03/53322051580/in/dateposted/



Another map, with the same concept as the OP, just a few centuries later in history, at 1350 AD
www.flickr.com/photos/22187058@N03/53321831068/in/dateposted/

  Well for the 1st one, assuming the ASB prevents climatic impacts it isolates Europe a lot more from the rest of the old world.  Would suspect that Anatolia will stay largely Greek for the moment as they have naval superiority and hence support it while their European lands are more secure from Muslim attack.  Plus the possible reduction in steppe tribes threatening from the north although those already there are likely to last longer.  Think the Khazars are likely to drive Islam from the position in the northern Caucasus region and are also likely to last longer because neither new waves of steppe tribes nor Byzantium are going to be the same threat.  Likely to lose their eastern territories unless they develop their own naval forces.  Even then their going to be exposed to attack from the east.  Without the Khazar's to their NE border Islam may spread east into central Asia quicker.  What that might mean when they clash with the Tang could be interesting.

  I'm not sure whether the changes would allow a sea route from Scandinavia eastwards to the new sea and you could find Rus raiding around the Caspian shoreline and Black Sea - which they did anyway via the Volga.  Or what impact it would have on trade.  The Med is going to be significantly affected as likely to have higher tides and rougher weather as its more open to the Atlantic and Arctic opens and also broader than OTL.

  That could also help the Byzantine empire in the south as well as its going to be harder for the Moors to attack Sicily and raid neighbouring areas, at least for a while.  If this means that the Papacy and Rome stays largely under imperial influence that could have a big impact on political and religious history.  Even if Charlemagne still occurs his empire might not be called into Italy while there will be no Moorish occupation of Iberia so he could en up fighting what's left of the Visigoth state there.

  The big longer term change is that its unlikely your going to see continued waves of nomads invading from the east and especially no equivalent to the Mongols and Tamerlane.  This will make what's now European Russia a lot more stable and whoever emerges as the dominant player here, most likely either the Khazars or the Rus longer lasting and probably richer.  What happens on the eastern coast of the north channel could be interesting.  With access to sea trade and fishing and probably a wetter and more moderate climate you could see coastal cities being established but they will be under continued pressure from nomadic forces.  A lot would depend on how defensible such settlements could be.  If the Tang are a bit more successful you could see Chinese or at least Chinese influenced cultures established there.

  Anyway initial thoughts on the issue.

[stevep]

Nov 10, 2023 3:11:50 GMT raharris1973 said:

WI ASBs separate Europe from Asia and Africa by 100-200 mile minimums in most places & down to 50 in the Caucasus in 700 AD?

Do better moats, make better neighbors, at least for longer periods of time?

See map:
www.flickr.com/photos/22187058@N03/53321947869/in/dateposted/



Will Spain and Sicily be pretty safe from Moorish/Saracen invasion? Will the isolated portion of the Caliphate's Caucasus provinces, inhabited by Persians, Armenians, and Georgians, be pretty vulnerable to Khazar conquest, local revolt, or both? Will Byzantine Asia Minor, further away from Constantinople, Greece, and Thrace, be more vulnerable to assaults from the Caliphate over the next century or two, compared with OTL? Or will Muslim conquest of that region still have to await migratory reinforcement by Turks. 

Will Europe run out of nomadic invaders earlier - maybe miss out on some of its Magyars, or if not them, at least miss out on some of its various and sundry Cumans, Polovtsy, Pechenegs, Patzinaks, Tatars, and, of course, Mongols, over the next 500-700 years with the water barrier around the Ural Mountains extending from the Mediterranean, Black and Caspian Seas to the Arctic Ocean?

Alternatively, how would world geopolitics go down from 700 AD, if world geography were altered by ASBs to do this, detaching all Europe and Siberia and Central Asia from the rest of Asia? 

See map:

www.flickr.com/photos/22187058@N03/53322051580/in/dateposted/



Another map, with the same concept as the OP, just a few centuries later in history, at 1350 AD
www.flickr.com/photos/22187058@N03/53321831068/in/dateposted/

  For the 2nd map with Europe now including Siberia, although it looks like there is a choke point a bit west of the current Chinese border there is now a direct sea route between Europe and the Far East which is going to have huge economic and cultural impacts, although a lot will depend on who controls this channel.  Probably most of the time not a single nation given its length and could be a lot of piracy as well.  Not sure how it will influence the northern steppe as the climate will be more moderate and there is the potential for agricultural and merchant settlements along its southern shores.  For the southern steppe and related parts of central Asia that will make the region more fertile but also more accessible for the Chinese especially if they get a fleet active on this new northern sea.  Plus it cuts the region off from the northern steppe raiders.  This will reduce the pressure on China especially but also on the Trans-Oxus region.  Note that the trade route, because of the ability to move goods in bulk by sea is likely to dominate the silk road, to the disadvantage of other routes.  The much wider passage between Constantinople and Anatolia will reduce the Byzantium empire's control over its western end but its still likely to benefit somewhat.

  Khazar should be stronger and more secure from the south but more vulnerable to new steppe tribes than in the previous option although again the eastern - rather than a northern channel - will give them access to eastern trade if they can move to a partially maritime stance.  A lot would depend on how various groups and influences interact.

  In terms of things in the greater Med region probably not a massive difference.

[575]

The 700 map seems to have the Urals in Asia and Europes moved 1-200 miles north and slightly west will make for a cooler climate in all of Europe. Depending on currents and thinking of north Baltic between Sweden and Finland the Urals strait may freeze during winter. Though probably not that inviting for nomads.
The Russian forest's will probably move south into Ukraine and the more eastern steppe making for much change there.
The Vinland journey will be much shortened on the first leg and perhaps the Scots/Picts may beat the Norse in that race.
Norse/Vikings/Rus may still go by the Russian rivers to the former Black and Caspian Seas and onto the shores of the Caliphate.
Crusades may be somewhat difficult to get going with the added distance and no local one in Hispania though lots in the Baltic once that gets around. Think the Byzantine have gotten some problems holding their Empire in Anatolia. Interesting thing is will the various nomadic horsemen go south into Persia and Mesopotamia instead of Europe? Could spell serious trouble in the Near East. A lot of Turkic migration went that way. And India!
Without the later all-pervading mindset of Crusade European Christianity may look way different - "kill them all - the Lord know's his" may not come around.
Without nomads and Muslim/Moor Hispania Charlemagne will have a much easier time - Frankish Denmark! or at least Jutland.

710 - oi Europe will get all the Horse Nomads in the face! Without the Crusades and local Muslims/Moors in Hispania it may be the time of the great battles in the foothills of the Carpathians.
In contrast till 700 this will see a lot of exploration of the seaway all the way to Cathay and Zipango (Japan). With the added moisture in Central Asia the horseman way of life may slowly wither away due to a lot of steppe becoming forest. So perhaps not so bad anyway. Could make for much trade along the seaway in the long run and exchange of ideas.

1350 - the Steppe will change in Europe slowly transforming the geography in that part. And the Golden Horde too. With more forest the Cossack won't have the significance we know.

In all three alt-Russia will be the most affected of Europe because of changed climate.

[raharris1973]

Nov 10, 2023 12:17:17 GMT stevep said:

Nov 10, 2023 3:11:50 GMT raharris1973 said:

WI ASBs separate Europe from Asia and Africa by 100-200 mile minimums in most places & down to 50 in the Caucasus in 700 AD?

Do better moats, make better neighbors, at least for longer periods of time?

See map:
www.flickr.com/photos/22187058@N03/53321947869/in/dateposted/



Will Spain and Sicily be pretty safe from Moorish/Saracen invasion? Will the isolated portion of the Caliphate's Caucasus provinces, inhabited by Persians, Armenians, and Georgians, be pretty vulnerable to Khazar conquest, local revolt, or both? Will Byzantine Asia Minor, further away from Constantinople, Greece, and Thrace, be more vulnerable to assaults from the Caliphate over the next century or two, compared with OTL? Or will Muslim conquest of that region still have to await migratory reinforcement by Turks. 

Will Europe run out of nomadic invaders earlier - maybe miss out on some of its Magyars, or if not them, at least miss out on some of its various and sundry Cumans, Polovtsy, Pechenegs, Patzinaks, Tatars, and, of course, Mongols, over the next 500-700 years with the water barrier around the Ural Mountains extending from the Mediterranean, Black and Caspian Seas to the Arctic Ocean?

Alternatively, how would world geopolitics go down from 700 AD, if world geography were altered by ASBs to do this, detaching all Europe and Siberia and Central Asia from the rest of Asia? 

See map:

www.flickr.com/photos/22187058@N03/53322051580/in/dateposted/



Another map, with the same concept as the OP, just a few centuries later in history, at 1350 AD
www.flickr.com/photos/22187058@N03/53321831068/in/dateposted/

  Well for the 1st one, assuming the ASB prevents climatic impacts it isolates Europe a lot more from the rest of the old world.  Would suspect that Anatolia will stay largely Greek for the moment as they have naval superiority and hence support it while their European lands are more secure from Muslim attack.  Plus the possible reduction in steppe tribes threatening from the north although those already there are likely to last longer.  Think the Khazars are likely to drive Islam from the position in the northern Caucasus region and are also likely to last longer because neither new waves of steppe tribes nor Byzantium are going to be the same threat.  Likely to lose their eastern territories unless they develop their own naval forces.  Even then their going to be exposed to attack from the east.  Without the Khazar's to their NE border Islam may spread east into central Asia quicker.  What that might mean when they clash with the Tang could be interesting.

  I'm not sure whether the changes would allow a sea route from Scandinavia eastwards to the new sea and you could find Rus raiding around the Caspian shoreline and Black Sea - which they did anyway via the Volga.  Or what impact it would have on trade.  The Med is going to be significantly affected as likely to have higher tides and rougher weather as its more open to the Atlantic and Arctic opens and also broader than OTL.

  That could also help the Byzantine empire in the south as well as its going to be harder for the Moors to attack Sicily and raid neighbouring areas, at least for a while.  If this means that the Papacy and Rome stays largely under imperial influence that could have a big impact on political and religious history.  Even if Charlemagne still occurs his empire might not be called into Italy while there will be no Moorish occupation of Iberia so he could en up fighting what's left of the Visigoth state there.

  The big longer term change is that its unlikely your going to see continued waves of nomads invading from the east and especially no equivalent to the Mongols and Tamerlane.  This will make what's now European Russia a lot more stable and whoever emerges as the dominant player here, most likely either the Khazars or the Rus longer lasting and probably richer.  What happens on the eastern coast of the north channel could be interesting.  With access to sea trade and fishing and probably a wetter and more moderate climate you could see coastal cities being established but they will be under continued pressure from nomadic forces.  A lot would depend on how defensible such settlements could be.  If the Tang are a bit more successful you could see Chinese or at least Chinese influenced cultures established there.

  Anyway initial thoughts on the issue.

Nice response!

On climate changes, the opening of the Mediterranean and Black and Caspian seas to wider oceanic channels and forces should be the biggest impact. If the ASBs do not do something extra protective for Europe, what would you be worried about for Europe besides waves and oceanic waters?  Cooling or disruption of the Gulf Stream / North Atlantic drift really is not in order, because I have not moved Europe north in latitude at all.  

On the contrary, to 'part the lands' I've moved Africa, Asia, Australia, and many, many western Pacific islands, some few hundred miles southward and eastward. Had I placed lines on for the Tropics and Equator, that would have been clearer.  But Asia and North Africa look like they are in for some warming. The southern tips of Yemen and India may be about on the equator now, most of south China, not just from from Hong Kong, will be tropical. Siberia, Central Asia, Persia, India, Japan, Asia Minor, the Levant, Egypt, Tunisia, Mauretania, should all be warmed.  As a consequence of the southern movement, more of Australia should be non-tropical, cooler, probably wetter, and more temperate, while also physically closer to New Zealand, which I did not move.  More of Southern Africa is south of the Tropic of Capricorn and may have that more moderate, 'Mediterranean' climate the Cape area is known for.

On the Byzantines - They still have their centers of strength in both the Balkans (and Sicily and Italy) and Anatolia, and naval superiority, but it is going to be a longer and less convenient sea voyage for the European and island segments to support the Anatolia-Cyprus segment and vice versa. Constantinople is no longer a chokepoint of any kind.  The Umayyad Caliphate likely is not in any position to attempt its historical second siege of Constantinople in the early 700s. Nor is any successful Islamic invasion of Spain or Sicily likely in the 700s or 800s.

It is true that Constantinople and Byzantine Thrace and Greece are not under *Muslim* threat with their new distance from Muslim shores. However, the integrity of their Balkan perimeter had been well broken by Slavic invasions and migrations, and Danubian Bulgaria had already been established at this time. Bulgaria in OTL was on a trajectory to be getting stronger relative to the empire for a couple centuries.  It is possible if Anatolia is simply throwing back the Arabs in the 700s that Constantinople is calling on it for help in Europe, against Bulgarians and Slavs.  

Of course with Constantinople unavailable as a target, and without Khazar raids as a distraction, the Umayyads of the early 700s may focus on a step by step conquest of Anatolia and Cyprus. It would be hard fought.  It could fail, as you suggest is the likely outcome, but it might succeed, either as a final burst of Umayyad vitality and expansion circa 700-750, or over a few rounds between the Umayyads and Abbasids from 700 to 900 AD.  Or - Anatolian based Byzantines might just hold the line at the Taurus mountains pretty much for the foreseeable centuries. Possibly relying more on their internal resources than outside help.  There is a chance that distances between Anatolia-Cyprus and the rest of the Byzantine Empire in Europe and its islands might encourage a split in political authority.

I think the Khazars are likely to eliminate that fragment of the Umayyad Arab Caliphate's control in the southern Caucasus.  That's even with the Khazars having some of their eastern domain and horde cut off and isolated in Asia. To the north of them, the western half of the Volga Bulgars (still Tengrist/pagan, not yet Muslim) are sitting, with the other half in Asia [I wonder if the map got that wrong).  Not marked in the map, at this time, the Magyar people are occupying a decent stretch of eastern and central Ukraine. The Avars are occupying present-day Hungary.  Regarding the Khazars, was of 700 AD, their leadership is still Tengrist/pagan. The earliest accounts of any of their leaders/nobility adopting Judaism are from 740 AD. That may or may not happen here, because the balance of pressures on the Khazars will be different. Neither the Caliphate, nor Byzantium will have the same chokehold on their trade. They could stay Tengrist/pagan for longer.

But getting back to the fate of the Arab Caucasus. I feel like it would fall to the Khazars in the short-run, if cut off and unsupported. Maybe I am underestimating it, because the southern Caucasus does have more mountainous, defensible terrain and more population density than the Khazar lands to the north.  But, helpful to the Khazars would be that Arab Muslims, and maybe a handful of Persian & Kurdish Muslim families at this point in time should be a relatively small military, administrative, and clerical elite in the area, ruling over populations that are overwhelmingly composed of Christian Georgians, Christian Armenians, and Zoroastrian Persians.

A long term consequence that absolutely is interesting is that the source of new Turkic, Tatar, Mongol invaders from Asia is dried up, which should allow for more stability of life for whatever Khazar, Russian, Bulgarian, Finnish societies and states are emerging on the eastern edge of the European continent.  At least to the extent that those nomads don't figure out a military system that joins shipbuilding and maritime piracy with getting their horses on boats to get massed cavalry across.  Seems like that would take a lot of sophistication.  Looks like generally the nomadic hammers (but this can totally be affected by climate changes) will bypass Europe and simply come down harder on China East Asia, India, Persia, and southwest Asia, maybe as far as into Egypt.

Regarding the Arctic Sea reach around down into the Caspian Sea for raiding by Russia Vikings. I suppose maybe some eastern equivalent of Leif Erickson may be able to pull it off, but I doubt it would be a major competitor to the river routes, because of all the sea ice, poverty of the land, and lack of targets, especially until we really get into the medieval warm period circa 1000 AD.

[raharris1973]

Nov 10, 2023 13:22:00 GMT 575 said:

The 700 map seems to have the Urals in Asia and Europes moved 1-200 miles north and slightly west will make for a cooler climate in all of Europe. Depending on currents and thinking of north Baltic between Sweden and Finland the Urals strait may freeze during winter. Though probably not that inviting for nomads.
The Russian forest's will probably move south into Ukraine and the more eastern steppe making for much change there.
The Vinland journey will be much shortened on the first leg and perhaps the Scots/Picts may beat the Norse in that race.
Norse/Vikings/Rus may still go by the Russian rivers to the former Black and Caspian Seas and onto the shores of the Caliphate.
Crusades may be somewhat difficult to get going with the added distance and no local one in Hispania though lots in the Baltic once that gets around. Think the Byzantine have gotten some problems holding their Empire in Anatolia. Interesting thing is will the various nomadic horsemen go south into Persia and Mesopotamia instead of Europe? Could spell serious trouble in the Near East. A lot of Turkic migration went that way. And India!
Without the later all-pervading mindset of Crusade European Christianity may look way different - "kill them all - the Lord know's his" may not come around.
Without nomads and Muslim/Moor Hispania Charlemagne will have a much easier time - Frankish Denmark! or at least Jutland.

710 - oi Europe will get all the Horse Nomads in the face! Without the Crusades and local Muslims/Moors in Hispania it may be the time of the great battles in the foothills of the Carpathians.
In contrast till 700 this will see a lot of exploration of the seaway all the way to Cathay and Zipango (Japan). With the added moisture in Central Asia the horseman way of life may slowly wither away due to a lot of steppe becoming forest. So perhaps not so bad anyway. Could make for much trade along the seaway in the long run and exchange of ideas.

1350 - the Steppe will change in Europe slowly transforming the geography in that part. And the Golden Horde too. With more forest the Cossack won't have the significance we know.

In all three alt-Russia will be the most affected of Europe because of changed climate

The 700 map seems to have the Urals in Asia and Europes moved 1-200 miles north and slightly west will make for a cooler climate in all of Europe.

Actually not! I moved the other continents south and east, so they get warmer instead! It would be easier to see if I had put on an equator line, showing the change. Your points on European weather and the North Atlantic *would* all apply if it was the other way though, like especially if it narrowed the Scotland-Iceland gap.

Think the Byzantine have gotten some problems holding their Empire in Anatolia. Interesting thing is will the various nomadic horsemen go south into Persia and Mesopotamia instead of Europe? Could spell serious trouble in the Near East. A lot of Turkic migration went that way. And India!

Agree - these are all major issues.  And there's a chance that for awhile, the Byzantines are not doing all that great in Europe either, with the rising new Bulgarian empire after 700 AD, and pressures for Varangian/Rus/Viking/Norman raids, and having a harder time drawing strength back in from Anatolia.

Without the later all-pervading mindset of Crusade European Christianity may look way different - "kill them all - the Lord know's his" may not come around.
Without nomads and Muslim/Moor Hispania Charlemagne will have a much easier time - Frankish Denmark! or at least Jutland.

Hadn't thought of all that. Of course the supply of eastern nomads and Vikings isn't exhausted right away. There were, after the Avars, still Magyars in the Ukrainian steppe waiting to invade. We also have to consider if Martel can build up his rep the same without fighting Moors at all.  But Frankish Denmark-Jutland is an interesting idea and extension of the conquest of Saxony.  

Assuming Frankish consolidation/expansion, Visigoth Spain is easily imaginable as a desirable target for conquest campaigns, and should have some divisions making it vulnerable. Not mentioned, by even England could be a target for intervention. Of course, if the Franks keep to partible inheritance, they will redivide Europe each generation.

710 - oi Europe will get all the Horse Nomads in the face! Without the Crusades and local Muslims/Moors in Hispania it may be the time of the great battles in the foothills of the Carpathians.
In contrast till 700 this will see a lot of exploration of the seaway all the way to Cathay and Zipango (Japan). With the added moisture in Central Asia the horseman way of life may slowly wither away due to a lot of steppe becoming forest. So perhaps not so bad anyway. Could make for much trade along the seaway in the long run and exchange of ideas.

I agree with this - southern Europe - starting from Byzantium, later Italy, trade all the way to China interior sea trade would be worked out.  And the first, most relevant sea trade on this route would be Islamic Persian, from the former Caspian coast, to China, and eventually Korea and Japan.  With the shorter distances, India and Indian Ocean shipping, longer and more dangerous. might be left a little bit 'out of the loop'. And while Europeans often used Egypt or Mesopotamia as gateways for trade to India, because Indian products themselves will still be valuable, European merchants here may prefer to stop on the Persian north shore and Persia may benefit from well travelled caravan routes through its center to the Persian Gulf and India. Climate change could alter things and change the supporting conditions for nomadism as well.

1350 - the Steppe will change in Europe slowly transforming the geography in that part. And the Golden Horde too. With more forest the Cossack won't have the significance we know.

Cossacks still did forest conquest - See Yermak Timofeyovich. The forests were where the furs were, and 1500s and 1600s, where Russia expanded fastest to the Pacific.  

Here, politically, the writing is already on the wall for little Granada in Spain - already a vassal of Castille, it will be annexed and force-converted no later than 1492, and probably earlier.  

Asia Minor is already entirely Turkish ruled, with the Ottoman Beylik ruling northwestern Anatolia, but it has not yet crossed into Europe.  Without naval strength it had no sign of developing, and with the new distance, the Balkans will be spared of any Ottoman, Turkish, or Muslim conquest or migration. Balkan politics will remain for the centuries ahead a rivalry of the Serbian empire (ascendant at the moment), little Bulgaria, the remnant Byzantine Empire in Thrace, the Byzantine-derived Despotate of Morea, various outpost islands of Venice, newly forming Vlach principalities, and ebbing and flowing Hungarian intervention.

In Russia, the Horde remains, but the Horde is cut off from its eastern half and reinforcements. In this century, the Muscovites are destined to win at Kulikovo. The Muscovites will still gain permanent momentum by the 1400s and break the horde into smaller shrinking fragments by the 1500s.

The Ottomans may be crushed entirely, or certainly eclipsed, by Timurlane. After his empire falls apart, Anatolian 'Turkey' will be ruled by multiple Turkish 'Beyliks', including a recovering Ottoman one or not. Probably, eventually a larger one will consolidate most of the peninsula into a Sultanate ruling most of what we know today as 'Turkey'. But, without the loot and taxes from 'Rumelia' and European conquests, there is no guarantee it would ever conquer and rule most of the Middle East south of the Taurus mountains. Egypt-based Mameluke dynasties might continue for longer over Egypt and the Levant.


 

[raharris1973]

Nov 10, 2023 12:42:29 GMT stevep said:

Nov 10, 2023 3:11:50 GMT raharris1973 said:

WI ASBs separate Europe from Asia and Africa by 100-200 mile minimums in most places & down to 50 in the Caucasus in 700 AD?

Do better moats, make better neighbors, at least for longer periods of time?

See map:
www.flickr.com/photos/22187058@N03/53321947869/in/dateposted/



Will Spain and Sicily be pretty safe from Moorish/Saracen invasion? Will the isolated portion of the Caliphate's Caucasus provinces, inhabited by Persians, Armenians, and Georgians, be pretty vulnerable to Khazar conquest, local revolt, or both? Will Byzantine Asia Minor, further away from Constantinople, Greece, and Thrace, be more vulnerable to assaults from the Caliphate over the next century or two, compared with OTL? Or will Muslim conquest of that region still have to await migratory reinforcement by Turks. 

Will Europe run out of nomadic invaders earlier - maybe miss out on some of its Magyars, or if not them, at least miss out on some of its various and sundry Cumans, Polovtsy, Pechenegs, Patzinaks, Tatars, and, of course, Mongols, over the next 500-700 years with the water barrier around the Ural Mountains extending from the Mediterranean, Black and Caspian Seas to the Arctic Ocean?

Alternatively, how would world geopolitics go down from 700 AD, if world geography were altered by ASBs to do this, detaching all Europe and Siberia and Central Asia from the rest of Asia? 

See map:

www.flickr.com/photos/22187058@N03/53322051580/in/dateposted/



Another map, with the same concept as the OP, just a few centuries later in history, at 1350 AD
www.flickr.com/photos/22187058@N03/53321831068/in/dateposted/

  For the 2nd map with Europe now including Siberia, although it looks like there is a choke point a bit west of the current Chinese border there is now a direct sea route between Europe and the Far East which is going to have huge economic and cultural impacts, although a lot will depend on who controls this channel.  Probably most of the time not a single nation given its length and could be a lot of piracy as well.  Not sure how it will influence the northern steppe as the climate will be more moderate and there is the potential for agricultural and merchant settlements along its southern shores.  For the southern steppe and related parts of central Asia that will make the region more fertile but also more accessible for the Chinese especially if they get a fleet active on this new northern sea.  Plus it cuts the region off from the northern steppe raiders.  This will reduce the pressure on China especially but also on the Trans-Oxus region.  Note that the trade route, because of the ability to move goods in bulk by sea is likely to dominate the silk road, to the disadvantage of other routes.  The much wider passage between Constantinople and Anatolia will reduce the Byzantium empire's control over its western end but its still likely to benefit somewhat.

  Khazar should be stronger and more secure from the south but more vulnerable to new steppe tribes than in the previous option although again the eastern - rather than a northern channel - will give them access to eastern trade if they can move to a partially maritime stance.  A lot would depend on how various groups and influences interact.

  In terms of things in the greater Med region probably not a massive difference.

Agreed with all.