Ecology of the Classical World?

[Maximus]

Centuries of irrigation in the fertile crescent have apparently caused salt to leach up from the subsoil. Don't ask me for a link, but I've read this multiple places.

I also read someplace that prior to the Arab conquest of the mahgrib, one could ride from Alexandria to Tunis in the shade of olive trees. Probably an exaggeration and I don't know why this would have changed but there you go. Massive deforestation could certainly lead to desertification.

[saskganesh]

I rather suspect that the relative appearance of fertility has to do with land management practices at the time.

Take for example what is now Israel. Travellers of the 19th century universally describe "Palestine" as, basically, a goat-infested wilderness of desolation. It was considered the worst possible posting if you were a Turkish bureaucrat. The climate certainly hasn't changed in 100 years, but Isreal is now a major agricultural centre in the region.

That old chesnut. 

Is it incorrect?

what I have read is that Saladin's scorched earth policy after Hattin was calculated to make retaking (and holding) Jerusalem untenable for Crusaders. As palestine was henceforth more or less a frontier area of whatever Islamic power was dominant in the region, this ecological decay made strategic sense, as well as explaining the lack of motivation to fix things.

[Malthus]

I rather suspect that the relative appearance of fertility has to do with land management practices at the time.

Take for example what is now Israel. Travellers of the 19th century universally describe "Palestine" as, basically, a goat-infested wilderness of desolation. It was considered the worst possible posting if you were a Turkish bureaucrat. The climate certainly hasn't changed in 100 years, but Isreal is now a major agricultural centre in the region.

That old chesnut. 

Is it incorrect?

what I have read is that Saladin's scorched earth policy after Hattin was calculated to make retaking (and holding) Jerusalem untenable for Crusaders. As palestine was henceforth more or less a frontier area of whatever Islamic power was dominant in the region, this ecological decay made strategic sense, as well as explaining the lack of motivation to fix things.

I read somewhere that the ecological problems had both ancient and relatively recent origins.

Part was due to the fact that goat-herding was a major economic activity, and throughout the med. goats were and are hard on the environment - they eat everything and contribute to desertification.

Also, the Turks had the habit of casually deforesting the region to build stuff like strategic railways.

I never heard the Saladin explaination before, which of course doesn't mean it isn't true. Interesting. 

[Valmy]

what I have read is that Saladin's scorched earth policy after Hattin was calculated to make retaking (and holding) Jerusalem untenable for Crusaders. As palestine was henceforth more or less a frontier area of whatever Islamic power was dominant in the region, this ecological decay made strategic sense, as well as explaining the lack of motivation to fix things.

I find that hard to believe.  The threat that the Crusaders had in Palestine only lasted a relatively short time and was over centuries ago.  Are you telling me they left the place a desert for 600+ years just because they were worried the Crusaders would come back?  I think people way overstate the impact of the Crusaders.  The only reason the Arabs suddenly cared about them in recent times is because in the 19th century the Westerners suddenly came back and started acting like assholes again.

[The Brain]

The ancients didn't have very high standards. Rome was the center of the world. I think all of us who have been to Rome can say: LOLWTF

[saskganesh]

what I have read is that Saladin's scorched earth policy after Hattin was calculated to make retaking (and holding) Jerusalem untenable for Crusaders. As palestine was henceforth more or less a frontier area of whatever Islamic power was dominant in the region, this ecological decay made strategic sense, as well as explaining the lack of motivation to fix things.

I find that hard to believe.  The threat that the Crusaders had in Palestine only lasted a relatively short time and was over centuries ago.  Are you telling me they left the place a desert for 600+ years just because they were worried the Crusaders would come back?  I think people way overstate the impact of the Crusaders.  The only reason the Arabs suddenly cared about them in recent times is because in the 19th century the Westerners suddenly came back and started acting like assholes again.

it has merit. for the first 100 years, then the area was a border state between Mamelukes in Egypt and Mongols/Ilkhans, then Mamelukes and Turks and then Turks and whatever Pasha ran Egypt.

since the Crusade era, no power, whether Christian or Muslim considered Palestine the heart of empire. It was fringe, and frontier, and underdeveloped, because better opportunities existed elsewhere.

[The Minsky Moment]

since the Crusade era, no power, whether Christian or Muslim considered Palestine the heart of empire. It was fringe, and frontier, and underdeveloped, because better opportunities existed elsewhere.

BTW that has been true for virtually all of recorded history.  First it was a buffer between Egypt and the Hittittes, then Egypt and the Assyrians and Neo-babylonians, then (after the Persian interlude) between Ptolemy and the Seleucids, then Rome/Byzantium and revived Persia, and so on.

  A long history of people getting dragged into other people's wars, being used as imperial pawns and being bargained back and forth between world powers.  It is not surprising that messianic religions have taken such strong root in that area.

[MadImmortalMan]

I also read someplace that prior to the Arab conquest of the mahgrib, one could ride from Alexandria to Tunis in the shade of olive trees.

Accounts of Cato's African march conflict with that claim. That's pretty much the same route he took, isn't it? There were some wetter areas described there, including a place with a natural harbor that is completely gone now (can't remember the name) and that lake in Tunisia that no longer exists as well, but the Libyan coastline was described as barren as hell.

[Crazy_Ivan80]

It's a good question Ishmail.  I've wondered that myself at times - why the "fertile crescent" and such areas seemed so wildly unfertile today.  I've never seen a good answer though.

I thought it was because of the Mongols?

probably not since the fertile crescent really is the region created by the various mountainranges that border the Mesopotamian (flood)plain. In the crescent it was possible to do agriculture without irrigation, unlike in the land between the rivers.

[Caliga]

including a place with a natural harbor that is completely gone now

Lepcis Magna?

I guess another piece of evidence in favor of the argument that Libya has been drying out is the extinction of silphium... I have always found the claim that it went extinct in the 1st century AD (I think it was) due to simple overharvesting very difficult to believe, unless the only way to harvest it was to kill the plant and the producers were just idiots.

[saskganesh]

since the Crusade era, no power, whether Christian or Muslim considered Palestine the heart of empire. It was fringe, and frontier, and underdeveloped, because better opportunities existed elsewhere.

BTW that has been true for virtually all of recorded history.  First it was a buffer between Egypt and the Hittittes, then Egypt and the Assyrians and Neo-babylonians, then (after the Persian interlude) between Ptolemy and the Seleucids, then Rome/Byzantium and revived Persia, and so on.

  A long history of people getting dragged into other people's wars, being used as imperial pawns and being bargained back and forth between world powers.  It is not surprising that messianic religions have taken such strong root in that area.

pretty much. but oddly, when the First Crusade rolled through, there was a number of semi- independent Seljuk princes based in the area who hated each other more than the invaders. So the region was both relatively rich and disunited, which made conquest easier; the wealth of the tenuous kingdom of J was spent on military matters, but also supported a lavish lifestyle for the new barons of Outremer. Galliee and Judea were rich enough to attract and support a Frankish/Latin immigrant peasantry of about 50,000 plus the Jacobite Syrians who lived there. Saladin's looting made sure those immigrants never came back, who stayed in the coastal strip. the Syrians suffered.

certainly also global trade shifts in the renaissance helped accentuate the region's economic decline.but Jerusalem fell in population from est. 70k in 1099 to 30K? in the 12th century, to even fewer when the city walls were destroyed in the 13th.

[garbon]

The ancients didn't have very high standards. Rome was the center of the world. I think all of us who have been to Rome can say: LOLWTF

Well it is like a graveyard now, but I can see how it was once lovely.

[Caliga]

  Doesn't it have a population in the millions?

The only cities I've been to that seemed more crowded were London and Boston.

[garbon]

Doesn't it have a population in the millions?

The only cities I've been to that seemed more crowded were London and Boston.

Actually when I was out in about in Rome, there were a lot of places where I saw few people. But I really meant that the presence of so much decayed architecture gives in more of a mausoleum feel.

[DGuller]

I rather suspect that the relative appearance of fertility has to do with land management practices at the time.

Take for example what is now Israel. Travellers of the 19th century universally describe "Palestine" as, basically, a goat-infested wilderness of desolation. It was considered the worst possible posting if you were a Turkish bureaucrat. The climate certainly hasn't changed in 100 years, but Isreal is now a major agricultural centre in the region.

Is Israel's agriculture sustainable, though?  Aren't Israelis depleting their fresh water sources at an alarming rate?