stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,860 
Likes: 13,247
|
Post by stevep on Jan 3, 2023 19:23:31 GMT
What a naughty boy You are - well they have the most advanced ship technology - they will be rather surprised the weathers changed to something like Med climate in Scandinavia at least to the south, Panicum part of the agricultural package. Though before we all fall into trap of Viking conquest of all Europe remember the area was more populous than You'd think and people did trade and had done so since the Neolithic also with the Med area. The locals will be as wild and woolly as the Scandinavians though their weapons will be bronce but a really hardened bronzesword may be as tough as a bogiron sword!!! Also remember peoples back then weren't any more stupid (!) than today and no more than during 793AD just living in another day and age. They did build Stonehenge remember. Of course a lot in the north of Europe will still be in Neolithic culture so won't seem the first choice of prey unless we talk slaves.
Perhaps not a Norse Speaking but a Norse Dominated Europe though the locals will learn and exchange the row-boats for sailing types.
The neighborhood is kind of rough. You have Minoans, Hittities, Achaeeans and Egyptians. Phoenicians and the "minors". The Babylonians are just about to go on their genocidal empire building spree. Figure all of them to be worse than the Aztecs, much worse as to savagery. The Vikings will have their hands full, despite their iron age superiority. The neighbors are better organized and better at land warfare. Think Romans with bronze weapons.
I think its too early by about a millennium or so for many of those people, finding at most their antecedents. Similar sort of time before the Ashurians emerged as a city state, let alone an empire. The main people's at this time are still the Egyptians and the Sumerians - with further east the Indus culture. Babylon is 1st mentioned as a small town in tablets from the reign of Sargon of Akkad (2334–2279 BC) of the Akkadian Empire, which itself is still ~700 years in the future. 3000BC is a hell of a long time ago for human cultures.
The other issue is how far would the Vikings get? They will have relatively few people to trade with and little to buy from such people other than possibly food - if there's enough surplus - or slaves which they might seek to get by raiding. It would probably take a couple of centuries with so many easy pickings - albeit with some tough fights in areas - before they reach Gibraltar. One other options of course is that the Swedish Rus could build a substantial empire in what's now Russia/Ukraine and they could be the 1st people to actually reach the Med.
|
|
|
|
Post by Otto Kretschmer on Jan 3, 2023 19:48:59 GMT
Stevep - wiki gives an estimate of 7 mln people for Europe in 3000 BC. There is enough land for the Norse to settle in Europe using their iron weaponry as an advantage.
|
|
miletus12
Squadron vice admiral
To get yourself lost, just follow the signs.
Posts: 7,470 
Likes: 4,295
|
Post by miletus12 on Jan 3, 2023 19:56:49 GMT
I think its too early by about a millennium or so for many of those people, finding at most their antecedents. Similar sort of time before the Ashurians emerged as a city state, let alone an empire. The main people's at this time are still the Egyptians and the Sumerians - with further east the Indus culture. Babylon is 1st mentioned as a small town in tablets from the reign of Sargon of Akkad (2334–2279 BC) of the Akkadian Empire, which itself is still ~700 years in the future. 3000BC is a hell of a long time ago for human cultures.
The other issue is how far would the Vikings get? They will have relatively few people to trade with and little to buy from such people other than possibly food - if there's enough surplus - or slaves which they might seek to get by raiding. It would probably take a couple of centuries with so many easy pickings - albeit with some tough fights in areas - before they reach Gibraltar. One other options of course is that the Swedish Rus could build a substantial empire in what's now Russia/Ukraine and they could be the 1st people to actually reach the Med. You might be correct.  If we then speculate proto-empires... my money is still on the Minoans and the Egyptians, as well as those Tigris Euphrates city states. Pirates, religious fanatics, and cut-throat capitalists, some choice of neighbors! The Vikings would be in about the same position knowledge wise as the example of the ISOT African Americans of 1860 in the early Americas. The difference is that the Vikings are far fewer, they do not know where the iron is, or the charcoal or anything about their neighbors since they are spatially as well as temporally displaced. The African Americans do know where, what and how, in the American south and there are many more of them than their fragmented Native American neighbors, who do not even speak the same languages (Creole, Spanish and ENGLISH.) So the learning curves are different, the technological gulf is vaster for the African Americanb in example two, but easier to implement overcome strategies, since you have many John McCoys in that population and a huge incentive and political experience (Underground Railroad) to get organized in a big hurry. |
|
575
Captain
There is no Purgatory for warcriminals - they go directly to Hell!
Posts: 2,742
Likes: 4,118
|
Post by 575 on Jan 3, 2023 22:43:41 GMT
What a naughty boy You are - well they have the most advanced ship technology - they will be rather surprised the weathers changed to something like Med climate in Scandinavia at least to the south, Panicum part of the agricultural package. Though before we all fall into trap of Viking conquest of all Europe remember the area was more populous than You'd think and people did trade and had done so since the Neolithic also with the Med area. The locals will be as wild and woolly as the Scandinavians though their weapons will be bronce but a really hardened bronzesword may be as tough as a bogiron sword!!! Also remember peoples back then weren't any more stupid (!) than today and no more than during 793AD just living in another day and age. They did build Stonehenge remember. Of course a lot in the north of Europe will still be in Neolithic culture so won't seem the first choice of prey unless we talk slaves.
Perhaps not a Norse Speaking but a Norse Dominated Europe though the locals will learn and exchange the row-boats for sailing types.
The neighborhood is kind of rough. You have Minoans, Hittities, Achaeeans and Egyptians. Phoenicians and the "minors". The Babylonians are just about to go on their genocidal empire building spree. Figure all of them to be worse than the Aztecs, much worse as to savagery. The Vikings will have their hands full, despite their iron age superiority. The neighbors are better organized and better at land warfare. Think Romans with bronze weapons. Indeed no nice place to drop into though numbers wise Denmark at that time should be 900,000-1,000,000 which would make up for about a seventh of European pop which would possibly equate to Bronzeage Denmark though this early there is no Bronzeage Denmark untill 2000BC its still Neolithicum. British Bronzeage begins in around 500 years.
Generally the Scandinavians should have room for expansion in Northern Europe but will encounter rather advanced cultures around home even if at Neolithic/Chalcolitic level.
The first large woodland felling doesn't occur in Denmark till 26-2500 BC which ties in with British Bronzeage - may be the time of climate optimum and population increase so the more I look at it the Scandinavians would have some 500 years to assert themselves though it will be non walk in the park!
|
|
Zyobot
Fleet admiral
Just a time-traveling robot stranded on Earth.
Posts: 17,352
Likes: 7,260
|
Post by Zyobot on Jan 4, 2023 2:58:18 GMT
‘2002 Iraq To 1942’.
Oh, boy…
|
|
miletus12
Squadron vice admiral
To get yourself lost, just follow the signs.
Posts: 7,470
Likes: 4,295
|
Post by miletus12 on Jan 4, 2023 3:51:17 GMT
‘2002 Iraq To 1942’. Oh, boy… 1. Ther Iraqis do / did not have the ability in 2002 to replace what they shoot off. In 1942 it will be the same only worse. 2. The Russians cannot be a supply source for Iraqi weapons although the 1942 Germans could try. The Iraqis in either case will not be able to use the equipment properly. 3. The 1942 British were incompetent, but they will have an easier time against the 2002 Iraqis, because the 1942 British were more RUTHLESS than the 2002 Americanms and the 2002 Iraqis were militarily in 2002 bigger... idiots than they were in 1942 or 1991. |
|
|
|
Post by Otto Kretschmer on Jan 4, 2023 9:13:57 GMT
China from 2020 ISOT to 1945.
|
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,860
Likes: 13,247
|
Post by stevep on Jan 4, 2023 9:38:55 GMT
Stevep - wiki gives an estimate of 7 mln people for Europe in 3000 BC. There is enough land for the Norse to settle in Europe using their iron weaponry as an advantage.
Do you mean 7 million? That's a lot more than I would have expected. Although if we're including the Russian/Ukraine region that is a hell of a lot of territory. Plus as 575 I think it was said its a climate maximum.
Not sure of the population of the Scandinavia region in 793.
One other issue of course could be disease impact between the two communities.
|
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,860
Likes: 13,247
|
Post by stevep on Jan 4, 2023 9:44:50 GMT
‘2002 Iraq To 1942’. Oh, boy…
That would be a major disaster. While the very few troops available performed miracles in the 41 uprising the markedly greater number in 42 - in preparation for a possible Soviet collapse will be lost due to the ISOT and depending on the exact time both the British forces and the Soviets could be very exposed. [Say just before 1st El Alamein with both Rommel and the 6th Army on the rampage]. The quality of Iraqi leadership would be lacking but their got substantial numbers and their equipment is very powerful compared to what they would be facing. True their got very little ability to replace losses but its going to be a tough time for the allies. - It could be worse if it was 1991 Iraq!
|
|
|
|
Post by Otto Kretschmer on Jan 4, 2023 16:01:56 GMT
2020 Norway, Sweden, Denmark and Finland to 1788.
Just before the French Revolution.
|
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,860
Likes: 13,247
|
Post by stevep on Jan 4, 2023 16:20:06 GMT
2020 Norway, Sweden, Denmark and Finland to 1788. Just before the French Revolution.
Well Finland was then part of the Russian empire so expect a nasty reaction from the latter. How both UTers and DTers will react to each other I don't know. At least some of the Scandinavians could well seek to support the revolution when it occurs and keep it fairly moderate, rather than the collapse into terror and mass murder.
|
|
miletus12
Squadron vice admiral
To get yourself lost, just follow the signs.
Posts: 7,470
Likes: 4,295
|
Post by miletus12 on Jan 4, 2023 16:37:00 GMT
2020 Norway, Sweden, Denmark and Finland to 1788. Just before the French Revolution. This is before Charles XIV obviously? Well, 95% of 21st Century cold weather tech and service infrastructure becomes instantly useless and a lot of people freeze and starve to death in Norway, Sweden and Denmark. The survivors have to adapt quickly because the Napoleonic Wars are about to kick off. How fast can the Swedish and Norwegians invent 1788 type offshore oil well drilling technology and drill, baby, drill in the North Sea with the 1788 British in the way? |
|
|
|
Post by Otto Kretschmer on Jan 4, 2023 18:01:31 GMT
2022 Amish population to 1000 AD America.
How does an Amish civilization look like?
|
|
|
|
Post by Otto Kretschmer on Jan 6, 2023 17:19:13 GMT
Italy from 1939 ISOT to September 1914.
|
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,860
Likes: 13,247
|
Post by stevep on Jan 6, 2023 20:30:26 GMT
Italy from 1939 ISOT to September 1914.
If its the 1939 borders that means they have Albania, parts of 1914 Austria and also Ethiopia. Which will cause some confusion and chaos right off. Then there's the fact their got far more advanced military forces than anyone else. Mussolini could go either way here. Austria has further lands he wants to claim which would mean war with Austria and Germany but as a dictator he might feel more attracted towards war with the EPs and seeking to seize say Tunisia and/or Egypt. That's if Vienna and Berlin give him a choice on the matter.
The logical step might be to say neutral for the moment until the economy has adjusted from the transition then decided what's in Italy's best longer term interests but then we're talking about Mussolini here so more likely he will go for something dramatic and showy, especially since he would be doubly confident about Italian power once he realises what's happened.
|
|
