|
Post by altoncarroll on Nov 9, 2019 1:27:05 GMT
Briefly, conquest but no genocides (except perhaps very late from Ottomans). Far less disease and plenty of time to recover by time of European invasions. European invaders facing Muslim Natives with weapons nearly equal.
,
|
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,856
Likes: 13,238
|
Post by stevep on Nov 9, 2019 17:25:00 GMT
Briefly, conquest but no genocides (except perhaps very late from Ottomans). Far less disease and plenty of time to recover by time of European invasions. European invaders facing Muslim Natives with weapons nearly equal. ,
Listened to most of it but doubtful of the conclusions. Your still going to have mass deaths from illness simply because that is largely unavoidable when you get contact with the old world hemisphere. The locals simply don't have the immunity that long exposure to those diseases brought pretty much all in the eastern hemisphere.
Similarly everywhere Islam went slavery was very common. The Berber native population of NW Africa are a minority in that region nowadays because of both widespread settlement by Arabs and also slavery of the Berbers. As such that's still going to be very common. It might not be as bad as with early modern Europe because the latter had already had a built up of racial intolerance, related to religion in part because of centuries of attacks by their Muslim neighbours. However its still going to occur although its possible that racial lines won't be as hard as in OTL Americas.
There was a lot of talk about what Mohammad says in the Koran but his actual behaviour often varied depending on his position. He spoke far more of tolerance when the early Muslims were weak and could be very brutal when they weren't. The early Muslims tended to be more tolerant, although their growth would have been impossible if it hadn't been for that simply because they were such a small number in alien oceans of native people but as they grew into majorities, often through conversions admittedly that tolerance often declined. Also as with other religions good things may be written in the holy book but their often not carried out by their followers. The video mentioned the naval capabilities of the Barbary pirates but then forgets the 2nd part of that. For centuries they plagued Europe, looting and enslaving as other Muslims did in other lands.
Another factor is that Islam promised tolerance, as long as they accepted their inferior position, for other people of the book - largely Jews and Christians but including some other groups - however none of the native cultures of the Americans fit that category. As such it would be rash to assume the same theoretical tolerance would be offered to them. A lot, with other conquests, would depend on the circumstances, but there is no basis for tolerance of native cultures and religions in Islam and as with the Spanish OTL they will be repulsed by the widespread blood sacrifice in many of the cultures and the use of cannibalism in other areas.
I'm not saying a Muslim discovery and conquest of the Americas might not be better for the inhabitants. However it definitely wouldn't be the relative paradise for the locals that is suggested in the video. Your still going to have massive death-tolls from disease and widespread enslavement, especially if/when the mineral wealth of the region is discovered. You might have some recognition of the rights of the locals and official opposition to their enslavement - as happened with Spain - but that was the basis for the introduction of black slaves to replace them in the worse tasks and might occur again here as Islam also used widespread enslavement of black African.
|
|
|
Post by altoncarroll on Nov 9, 2019 22:30:22 GMT
Briefly, conquest but no genocides (except perhaps very late from Ottomans). Far less disease and plenty of time to recover by time of European invasions. European invaders facing Muslim Natives with weapons nearly equal. ,
Listened to most of it but doubtful of the conclusions. Your still going to have mass deaths from illness simply because that is largely unavoidable when you get contact with the old world hemisphere. The locals simply don't have the immunity that long exposure to those diseases brought pretty much all in the eastern hemisphere.
Similarly everywhere Islam went slavery was very common. The Berber native population of NW Africa are a minority in that region nowadays because of both widespread settlement by Arabs and also slavery of the Berbers. As such that's still going to be very common. It might not be as bad as with early modern Europe because the latter had already had a built up of racial intolerance, related to religion in part because of centuries of attacks by their Muslim neighbours. However its still going to occur although its possible that racial lines won't be as hard as in OTL Americas.
There was a lot of talk about what Mohammad says in the Koran but his actual behaviour often varied depending on his position. He spoke far more of tolerance when the early Muslims were weak and could be very brutal when they weren't. The early Muslims tended to be more tolerant, although their growth would have been impossible if it hadn't been for that simply because they were such a small number in alien oceans of native people but as they grew into majorities, often through conversions admittedly that tolerance often declined. Also as with other religions good things may be written in the holy book but their often not carried out by their followers. The video mentioned the naval capabilities of the Barbary pirates but then forgets the 2nd part of that. For centuries they plagued Europe, looting and enslaving as other Muslims did in other lands.
Another factor is that Islam promised tolerance, as long as they accepted their inferior position, for other people of the book - largely Jews and Christians but including some other groups - however none of the native cultures of the Americans fit that category. As such it would be rash to assume the same theoretical tolerance would be offered to them. A lot, with other conquests, would depend on the circumstances, but there is no basis for tolerance of native cultures and religions in Islam and as with the Spanish OTL they will be repulsed by the widespread blood sacrifice in many of the cultures and the use of cannibalism in other areas.
I'm not saying a Muslim discovery and conquest of the Americas might not be better for the inhabitants. However it definitely wouldn't be the relative paradise for the locals that is suggested in the video. Your still going to have massive death-tolls from disease and widespread enslavement, especially if/when the mineral wealth of the region is discovered. You might have some recognition of the rights of the locals and official opposition to their enslavement - as happened with Spain - but that was the basis for the introduction of black slaves to replace them in the worse tasks and might occur again here as Islam also used widespread enslavement of black African.
Nowhere did I say "paradise." I did say "no genocides except at end." Which by comparison is not the dystopian present of a 98% non Native nation and multiple genocides, seven in the US alone. Nowhere did I say there would be no slavery. Where did you get that idea? What you obviously would not see is strict segregation. Or the genocidal practice of deliberately spread disease as done by the British army and American fur traders. If you know of an example of that during Muslim conquests I'd like to hear about it. And if you think Muslims would be intolerant of Native faiths, clearly you haven't seen the inroads the faith is making among Natives and Latinos as I have. www.nationalgeographic.com/photography/proof/2017/10/muslims-mexico-indigenous-religion-islam/BTW, most claims of cannibalism among Natives were deliberately fabricated or exaggerated. Karankawas-made up by Stephen Austin so he could lead a campaign to exterminate them. Caribs-made up to justify conquest. They did have a ritual involving putting a dead enemy's hand in the mouth, but not eating. Aztecs-limited to ritual use by priests and a few elites. It was, however, common among medieval Christians to eat bits of saints' corpses.
|
|
jjohnson
Chief petty officer
Posts: 144
Likes: 219
|
Post by jjohnson on Nov 9, 2019 23:51:55 GMT
If Muslim Spain or the Ottomans reached the American continents, that would be a big change. I don't know about genocides, but diseases would still affect a number of the Indians simply for the fact that they're not immune to the European diseases. I was reading a history book where it talked about how the Spanish conquistadors unwittingly caused the depopulation in northern America which made it easier for British settlers to move in a century or so later.
Do you think either of those two powers would cause the food transfers of things like potatoes back to Europe? Or perhaps spur earlier colonization efforts by the Scandinavians, English, French, and Germanic nations? Interesting thoughts.
|
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,856
Likes: 13,238
|
Post by stevep on Nov 10, 2019 9:54:55 GMT
Listened to most of it but doubtful of the conclusions. Your still going to have mass deaths from illness simply because that is largely unavoidable when you get contact with the old world hemisphere. The locals simply don't have the immunity that long exposure to those diseases brought pretty much all in the eastern hemisphere.
Similarly everywhere Islam went slavery was very common. The Berber native population of NW Africa are a minority in that region nowadays because of both widespread settlement by Arabs and also slavery of the Berbers. As such that's still going to be very common. It might not be as bad as with early modern Europe because the latter had already had a built up of racial intolerance, related to religion in part because of centuries of attacks by their Muslim neighbours. However its still going to occur although its possible that racial lines won't be as hard as in OTL Americas.
There was a lot of talk about what Mohammad says in the Koran but his actual behaviour often varied depending on his position. He spoke far more of tolerance when the early Muslims were weak and could be very brutal when they weren't. The early Muslims tended to be more tolerant, although their growth would have been impossible if it hadn't been for that simply because they were such a small number in alien oceans of native people but as they grew into majorities, often through conversions admittedly that tolerance often declined. Also as with other religions good things may be written in the holy book but their often not carried out by their followers. The video mentioned the naval capabilities of the Barbary pirates but then forgets the 2nd part of that. For centuries they plagued Europe, looting and enslaving as other Muslims did in other lands.
Another factor is that Islam promised tolerance, as long as they accepted their inferior position, for other people of the book - largely Jews and Christians but including some other groups - however none of the native cultures of the Americans fit that category. As such it would be rash to assume the same theoretical tolerance would be offered to them. A lot, with other conquests, would depend on the circumstances, but there is no basis for tolerance of native cultures and religions in Islam and as with the Spanish OTL they will be repulsed by the widespread blood sacrifice in many of the cultures and the use of cannibalism in other areas.
I'm not saying a Muslim discovery and conquest of the Americas might not be better for the inhabitants. However it definitely wouldn't be the relative paradise for the locals that is suggested in the video. Your still going to have massive death-tolls from disease and widespread enslavement, especially if/when the mineral wealth of the region is discovered. You might have some recognition of the rights of the locals and official opposition to their enslavement - as happened with Spain - but that was the basis for the introduction of black slaves to replace them in the worse tasks and might occur again here as Islam also used widespread enslavement of black African.
Nowhere did I say "paradise." I did say "no genocides except at end." Which by comparison is not the dystopian present of a 98% non Native nation and multiple genocides, seven in the US alone. Nowhere did I say there would be no slavery. Where did you get that idea? What you obviously would not see is strict segregation. Or the genocidal practice of deliberately spread disease as done by the British army and American fur traders. If you know of an example of that during Muslim conquests I'd like to hear about it. And if you think Muslims would be intolerant of Native faiths, clearly you haven't seen the inroads the faith is making among Natives and Latinos as I have. www.nationalgeographic.com/photography/proof/2017/10/muslims-mexico-indigenous-religion-islam/BTW, most claims of cannibalism among Natives were deliberately fabricated or exaggerated. Karankawas-made up by Stephen Austin so he could lead a campaign to exterminate them. Caribs-made up to justify conquest. They did have a ritual involving putting a dead enemy's hand in the mouth, but not eating. Aztecs-limited to ritual use by priests and a few elites. It was, however, common among medieval Christians to eat bits of saints' corpses.
Please read what I say again. I said it might be somewhat better for the natives but not greatly better as you seem to suggest. There would still be massive deaths from disease as that is unavoidable. The relatively few cases of deliberately attempting to spread disease are a blight on the British record but largely unimportant in terms of the actual death toll. Also given the desire to access the wealth of the new lands and Islam's preference for slavery that is also going to be widespread.
I'm not aware of widespread practicing of pre-Columbian religion in the Americas today so my point still stands about how the Muslim conquerors would, under their own rules, react to the religions in place at the time. How they interact with the predominantly Christian population of the modern times is a totally different matter.
There wouldn't be the same colour bar that led to black Africans often getting the rough end of the stick in Islamic society but as with the Berbers there's likely to be a them and us differentiation for at least a while after the Muslim conquest.
|
|
eurofed
Banned
Posts: 586
Likes: 62
|
Post by eurofed on Nov 10, 2019 23:45:34 GMT
I am rather skeptical Muslim conquest would have been much better for Amerindian peoples than the European one, for various reasons. First, there is no saving them from mass dying due to sheer lack of immunity to Old World diseases. Second, conquest of the Western Hemisphere and destruction of its Precolombian civilizations by the first imperialist Eurasian civilization to break the Age of Exploration threshold was more or less as unavoidable as the pandemic short of very contrived circumstances due to the vast technological gap that Precolombian cultures had developed with the sophisticated Eurasian ones, be them Europeans, surviving Romans, Muslims, Chinese, Japanese-Koreans, or Indians to quote the most likey candidates. Third, Islamic culture was just as enthusiastic a practitioner of slavery with an ethnic prejudice angle as the Europeans, and/or just as likely to enhance and entrench it because of ideological pressure to justify the gains of plantation economy. Fourth, the Muslims were just as likely to be intolerant of 'pagan' cultures as the Europeans, especially once they get horrified by the extensive and systematic use a few of them made of human sacrifice. All in all, if you are looking for a 'least evil' Eurasian civilization to be the (inevitable) colonizer of the Americas, my vote goes to a surviving Rome that overcame the causes of its OTL decline, absorbed all of Europe and the Middle East, and mastered Renaissance technology. Roman civilization entirely based its notion of identity on a civic ideal, was alien from ethnic prejudice and willing to give an equal place at the table to anyone that bought in its deal, was world champion in assimilating conquered peoples, and its model of slavery (assuming it would be still thriving when they discover the New World, which is doubtful) was completely separate from racial prejudice and provided a demonstrably effective path to integration of freedmen in society. Roman model of conquest usually prioritized assimilation of conquered peoples rather than genocide. They were far from averse (and rather efficient) at pragmatically using it as an extreme method of quelling resistance to their rule, but not any more so than your typical imperialist civilization. Admittably, there would be no saving Precolombian civilizations from pandemic mass dying or violent conquest at the legions' hands, nor from Romans doing their best to stomp out cultures that resisted their rule too hard or practiced human sacrifice. But in their wake, you would get mass assimilation of pacified Amerindian disease survivors in the Roman Empire as equals and their fusion by intermarriage with the many settlers that are surely coming to the Western Hemisphere from crowded Roman Europe (well, the ones that are not going to the other Roman colonies in Russia and East Africa, anyway). In a few centuries, the Roman elites and middle class are surely going to sport lots of brown-skinned faces as it befits the considerable demographic and economic weight of the American provinces, and nobody is going to bat an eye at their skin color or the quality of their ancestors. They shall be as true and proud Roman citizens as the Europeans, Middle Easterners, and Africans. This is pretty much what happens in my own Roma Aeterna TL. Slavery was in terminal decline by the time (10th century AD) Rome crossed into its Renaissance stage and its explorers came to the New World shores. It was gradually getting restricted to the modern use of main punishment for serious crimes that did not get the death penalty. Just like all the other major conquest bouts during Rome's expansion, colonization of the Americas caused a temporary revival of slavery, but its decline resumed once things got settled, with no stigma attached to descendants of freedmen. To the degree the Romans felt necessary to use unfree labor to run colonial economy, in the end they mostly resorted to indentured servitude from whatever manpower source available. Roman civilization was so alien from ethnic prejudice that one more conquest among many, albeit bigger than most, made no difference. Roman conquest of the Americas was no doubt violent and bloody, but invariably followed by efficient pacification and genuine assimilation. Just like anyone in the space between the Atlantic, the Sahara, the steppes, and the Indus before them, and the natives of Gothia (TTL Russia-Ukraine) and East Africa at the same time, Amerindian survivors of the contact pandemic learned Latin, converted to Romanism and/or Buddhism (*), developed a taste for bath houses, and became proud and loyal Roman citizens. They mingled with the many settlers that came to the American provinces from teeming Roman Europe. In time, the Amerindian natives and the European settlers part intermarried, part settled down to be good neighbors under the aegis of Pax Romana. Being true to their template, the Romans were eager to adopt anything useful they found in the Americas, and just as willing to share the achievements of their civilization with friendly natives. By modern times (**), citizens of the Empire are culturally and politically indistinguishable across the Western Hemisphere and the Old World, and their exact admixture of Caucasian, Amerindian, African, or Asian blood makes no meaningful difference for anyone (except perhaps when dealing with certain genetic disorders). The extant issues modern Rome faces (superpower competition with the Chinese and Indian empires, socio-economic inequality, power imbalance between the elites and the lower classes, environmental issues from mature global industrialization, space colonization, transition to a postcyberpunk-interplanetary civilization) have little to do with bigotry. When they hear about 'colonization', the average Roman, Chinese, or Indian thinks about the final frontier in space, not insignificant details about the lot of anybody's ancestors long ago. This world's history and culture since the Iron Age were largely shaped by a few Eurasian imperial civilizations that stayed successful and kept a recognizable identity since antiquity, besides inevitable social change. The occasional bout of disunity and strife was universally recognized as a bad thing and invariably recovered from. They recognized each other as equals long ago, and grew in parallel to account collectively for the vast majority of world land area, population, and economy by modern times. Therefore, the notion their imperialism was anything but a beneficial force of order and progress is a major outrage to common sense for this world's culture. They regard the balance of Pax Romana, Tianxa, and the Indian equivalent as the natural state of things. (*) Romanism is TTL Rome's majority religion, a philosophically sophisticated syncretist evolution of European polytheism with major pantheist and monist elements, a broad analogue of Hinduism with European memes and no caste system. Buddhism peacefully shares space with it as the second most important religion, and secular humanism largely makes up the rest. During its evolution, Rome either decided the Middle Eastern monotheisms were alien, hostile, and dangerous to its civilization and ruthlessly wiped them out, or its very success prevented them from arising. Later, the Romans resolved the cultures that indulged in such barbaric practices as human sacrifice, cannibalism, and/or genital mutilation deserved the same fate of extinction. (**) In terms of a technological equivalent to the Information Age on the edge of transition to postcyberpunk-interplanetary. Since TTL Europe never experienced a collapse and stayed as dynamic as OTL, and the world's leading civilizations grew in parallel thanks to their exchanges and competition, they achieved our level centuries ago, and were significantly more advanced in most fields by then. By the 21st century AD, in all likelihood TTL Rome is a broad equivalent of the Romulan Star Empire of Star Trek, without any taboo about transhumanist technology.
|
|
|
Post by altoncarroll on Nov 11, 2019 15:58:02 GMT
If Muslim Spain or the Ottomans reached the American continents, that would be a big change. I don't know about genocides, but diseases would still affect a number of the Indians simply for the fact that they're not immune to the European diseases. I was reading a history book where it talked about how the Spanish conquistadors unwittingly caused the depopulation in northern America which made it easier for British settlers to move in a century or so later. Do you think either of those two powers would cause the food transfers of things like potatoes back to Europe? Or perhaps spur earlier colonization efforts by the Scandinavians, English, French, and Germanic nations? Interesting thoughts. Often the impression people have is that Europeans hit the shores and almost all Natives die immediately. What actually happened was: 1. Europeans invade. No Natives die from epidemics immediately. Columbus invades and the first epidemic wasn't until 1512. 2. Europeans burn crops and food stores. They attack during planting and harvest times. 3. Only after prolonged starvation do the epidemics hit. And then they kill in numbers similar to the Black Plague, 1/3. 4. Repeated prolonged starvation and repeated epidemics. Mexico faced almost a dozen of them, not one. I think food from the Americas would go to Muslim areas and then the rest of Europe, liking spurring population growth, much like IOTL.
|
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,856
Likes: 13,238
|
Post by stevep on Nov 11, 2019 20:37:10 GMT
If Muslim Spain or the Ottomans reached the American continents, that would be a big change. I don't know about genocides, but diseases would still affect a number of the Indians simply for the fact that they're not immune to the European diseases. I was reading a history book where it talked about how the Spanish conquistadors unwittingly caused the depopulation in northern America which made it easier for British settlers to move in a century or so later. Do you think either of those two powers would cause the food transfers of things like potatoes back to Europe? Or perhaps spur earlier colonization efforts by the Scandinavians, English, French, and Germanic nations? Interesting thoughts. Often the impression people have is that Europeans hit the shores and almost all Natives die immediately. What actually happened was: 1. Europeans invade. No Natives die from epidemics immediately. Columbus invades and the first epidemic wasn't until 1512. 2. Europeans burn crops and food stores. They attack during planting and harvest times. 3. Only after prolonged starvation do the epidemics hit. And then they kill in numbers similar to the Black Plague, 1/3. 4. Repeated prolonged starvation and repeated epidemics. Mexico faced almost a dozen of them, not one. I think food from the Americas would go to Muslim areas and then the rest of Europe, liking spurring population growth, much like IOTL.
Not true in the case of the Aztecs at least. Their initial pandemics started in the period when the Spanish had been expelled from their capital and before they returned. Similarly with a lot of known cases in N America plagues started when initial explores went through. IIRC the Incas civil war started because the ruling Inca and his primarily heir died of smallpox, this being several years before Pizarro invaded the Inca empire.
Social disruption, starvation and the like compound disease outbreaks but it was the lack of natural immunity that was the killer and would have killed large numbers of people anyway. Not that it probably matters that greatly anyway as an alternative set of Islamic invasions is likely to be as destructive.
|
|
|
Post by altoncarroll on Nov 17, 2019 21:18:13 GMT
Often the impression people have is that Europeans hit the shores and almost all Natives die immediately. What actually happened was: 1. Europeans invade. No Natives die from epidemics immediately. Columbus invades and the first epidemic wasn't until 1512. 2. Europeans burn crops and food stores. They attack during planting and harvest times. 3. Only after prolonged starvation do the epidemics hit. And then they kill in numbers similar to the Black Plague, 1/3. 4. Repeated prolonged starvation and repeated epidemics. Mexico faced almost a dozen of them, not one. I think food from the Americas would go to Muslim areas and then the rest of Europe, liking spurring population growth, much like IOTL.
Not true in the case of the Aztecs at least. Their initial pandemics started in the period when the Spanish had been expelled from their capital and before they returned. Similarly with a lot of known cases in N America plagues started when initial explores went through. IIRC the Incas civil war started because the ruling Inca and his primarily heir died of smallpox, this being several years before Pizarro invaded the Inca empire.
Social disruption, starvation and the like compound disease outbreaks but it was the lack of natural immunity that was the killer and would have killed large numbers of people anyway. Not that it probably matters that greatly anyway as an alternative set of Islamic invasions is likely to be as destructive.
Actually the Incan civil war had been going on for half a decade before Europeans ever got there. Huayna Capac dying from Euro disease is an outdated debunked theory that had little evidence to start with. Most early accounts say otherwise. Note the authors here say there was no smallpox in the area for a quarter century after invasion. users.pop.umn.edu/~rmccaa/aha2004/whypox.htmBut the inertia of orthodoxy and sometimes outright genocide denial insists disease was always "accidental" rather than deliberately spread by mass starvation tactics, which by definition is genocide. Again, if anyone knows of deliberate starvation tactics in Muslim invasions, I'd be interested to see it. The claim of no Native immunity relies upon the falsehoods of isolation, no Native urban areas, or no domesticated animals. None of them are true in either Aztec or Incan cases.
|
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,856
Likes: 13,238
|
Post by stevep on Nov 17, 2019 22:25:07 GMT
Not true in the case of the Aztecs at least. Their initial pandemics started in the period when the Spanish had been expelled from their capital and before they returned. Similarly with a lot of known cases in N America plagues started when initial explores went through. IIRC the Incas civil war started because the ruling Inca and his primarily heir died of smallpox, this being several years before Pizarro invaded the Inca empire.
Social disruption, starvation and the like compound disease outbreaks but it was the lack of natural immunity that was the killer and would have killed large numbers of people anyway. Not that it probably matters that greatly anyway as an alternative set of Islamic invasions is likely to be as destructive.
Actually the Incan civil war had been going on for half a decade before Europeans ever got there. Huayna Capac dying from Euro disease is an outdated debunked theory that had little evidence to start with. Most early accounts say otherwise. Note the authors here say there was no smallpox in the area for a quarter century after invasion. users.pop.umn.edu/~rmccaa/aha2004/whypox.htmBut the inertia of orthodoxy and sometimes outright genocide denial insists disease was always "accidental" rather than deliberately spread by mass starvation tactics, which by definition is genocide. Again, if anyone knows of deliberate starvation tactics in Muslim invasions, I'd be interested to see it. The claim of no Native immunity relies upon the falsehoods of isolation, no Native urban areas, or no domesticated animals. None of them are true in either Aztec or Incan cases.
Now your starting to sound like a fanatic who puts their believes ahead of the evidence. Looking at two points: a) Of course disease was accidental in introduction. For one thing the Spanish and others didn't know enough to understand the operation of disease itself or protect their own people. For another there is no incentive to kill off the subjects you want to rule, tax and provide the local workforce.
b) What do you mean by the falsehood of isolation? With the exception of the very limited contact by the Vikings there had been so contact between the old and new world hemispheres since the latter's early occupation. There were definitely large urban areas but they were still small overall than many in the old world and probably more importantly of shorter duration. Also even those cultures that existed had less contact with each other because of the limited transport and communications abilities. There were a few domesticated animals but very few compared to the situation in the old world and I don't think any shared the same similarities to humans biologically as pigs for instance so there was much less chance for diseases to develop in the same sort of scale. No one I'm aware of is taking the extreme stance of NO urban areas or no domesticated animals as that's obviously inaccurate so your raising a straw man here.
|
|
jjohnson
Chief petty officer
Posts: 144
Likes: 219
|
Post by jjohnson on Nov 18, 2019 20:30:06 GMT
Certainly disease introduction was accidental; they didn't know what caused diseases at that point since they hadn't invented germ theory yet. That is a frustration with people nowadays subscribing to presentism in history, judging by today's trendy standards of history rather than the standards of the day in their particular cultures.
As for a timeline, definitely explore it and see where it goes. I'm sure you'll come up with something interesting and worth a read!
|
|