I'm watching The Leopard, a classic epic about the war of Italian Unification set mostly in Sicily. I've been reading quite a bit of Roman-Dark Age history too, so I know that Sicily, Egypt, North Africa and Mesopotamia were the great breadbaskets of the Roman (and the last one mostly for the Parthian-Sassanian) Empire.
But "fertile growing region" is not what the modern has in mind when he thinks of Algeria, Tunisia, Palermo or, worst of all, Egypt post-Dam. These are all virtual deserts, treeless and goat infested.
Why is this? I have a few ideas, but I'm wondering if anyone has any good info on this
1) They were good partially because they weren't heavily forested, barely civilized and extremely dangerous, like France, Germany, England or the modern Slavic countries.
2) Technology has moved forward allowing us to take advantage of certain advantages that more northerly climates have.
3) They were good, so they were overused. I know that Diamond talked a bit about this (though not nearly as much as I would have liked) in Collapse; during the earliest Sumerian period the area was lush albeit somewhat unstable (and by the time agriculture came around largely devoid of game), but by the Ottoman period all the trees were harvested, the goats were let off the leash and the entire area became a wasteland, unable to sustain pre-Islamic population or economic levels. I'm not sure this is the case of Sicily, so maybe the Berber-Mongol influence had something to do with it, or maybe the Arab love of goats ultimately balanced out the Arab agricultural revolution, and in the end coupled with salinization fucked over the whole region.
Also, is there some kind of nice comparison somewhere in the world with how the Mid-East and North Africa looked before people fucked it up? Maybe the more forested parts of Anatolia, or perhaps some part of Transoxiana? Some part of Mexico?
Second question: could it be fixed? Can we turn Arrakis into Rakis?
I thought the main reason for it was that the weather got drier/hotter and so the sands moved in.
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.
Quote from: Barrister on August 12, 2009, 11:13:39 PM
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?
I think that the temperate zone has moved moved a bit northward of where it was 2-3000 years ago, but also that overgraving and poor agricultural practices are partly to blame.
The change in climate since antiquity are well documented. You can look up the Little Ice Age and the Medieval Warm Period on wikipeida. Deforestation and goats did have real effects, we icelanders know about the goat effect since sheep ripped up our very thin topsoil quite regularly.
wars had effects. the Mongols apparently ruined the aqueduct system in Iraq, Saladin trashed Galilee after Hattin, William the Bastard made county York near uninhabitable for a couple of decades, the Gothic/Byzantine war also destroyed aqueducts and reduced Rome so much that the Forum was used as pasture. and so on.
in cases, the ecology could revive, but sometimes the balance was tipped and simply could not recover, especially when there was no government that had the ability or interest to do public works.
I'm interested in this stuff too.
Apparently Afghanistan was once a rather nice forested land.
For the fertile crescent and all goats are largely to blame of course. As well as natural global warming.
Quote from: Queequeg on August 12, 2009, 10:23:49 PM
But "fertile growing region" is not what the modern has in mind when he thinks of Algeria, Tunisia, Palermo or, worst of all, Egypt post-Dam. These are all virtual deserts, treeless and goat infested.
This is also a huge misconception. Sicily and the coastal areas of North Africa are in no way an arid wasteland. They may not be what they were in the past, but there's still lots of agriculture there. The Sahara doesn't reach to the coast, even if it has been "moving" northwards for centuries.
And "The Leopard" is not an epic about the unification of Italy, it's a drama about the decadence of old-fashioned aristocracy in the face of changing times.
Quote from: The Larch on August 13, 2009, 05:57:23 AM
This is also a huge misconception. Sicily and the coastal areas of North Africa are in no way an arid wasteland.
:yes: There were grain fields as far as the eye could see when I drove across Sicily last year.
wheat grows well in semi arid climes. see saskatchewan, north dakota etc.
what you need is ongoing soil conservation.
Quote from: The Larch on August 13, 2009, 05:57:23 AM
Quote from: Queequeg on August 12, 2009, 10:23:49 PM
But "fertile growing region" is not what the modern has in mind when he thinks of Algeria, Tunisia, Palermo or, worst of all, Egypt post-Dam. These are all virtual deserts, treeless and goat infested.
This is also a huge misconception. Sicily and the coastal areas of North Africa are in no way an arid wasteland. They may not be what they were in the past, but there's still lots of agriculture there. The Sahara doesn't reach to the coast, even if it has been "moving" northwards for centuries.
And "The Leopard" is not an epic about the unification of Italy, it's a drama about the decadence of old-fashioned aristocracy in the face of changing times.
:yes:
I'm fairly certain northern Tunisia and Algeria are fairly green and fertile. Same goes for at least the portion of Iraq between/around the Tigris and Euphrates. Hell, southern Iraq is basically like a giant swamp.
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.
Quote from: Armyknife on August 13, 2009, 09:43:21 AM
Quote from: Malthus on August 13, 2009, 08:17:11 AM
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. :cool:
Is it incorrect?
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.
Quote from: Malthus on August 13, 2009, 09:46:17 AM
Quote from: Armyknife on August 13, 2009, 09:43:21 AM
Quote from: Malthus on August 13, 2009, 08:17:11 AM
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. :cool:
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.
Quote from: saskganesh on August 13, 2009, 10:44:52 AM
Quote from: Malthus on August 13, 2009, 09:46:17 AM
Quote from: Armyknife on August 13, 2009, 09:43:21 AM
Quote from: Malthus on August 13, 2009, 08:17:11 AM
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. :cool:
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.
Quote from: saskganesh on August 13, 2009, 10:44:52 AM
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 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
Quote from: Valmy on August 13, 2009, 11:00:08 AM
Quote from: saskganesh on August 13, 2009, 10:44:52 AM
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.
Quote from: saskganesh on August 13, 2009, 11:39:28 AM
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.
Quote from: Maximus on August 13, 2009, 10:02:01 AM
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.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on August 12, 2009, 11:19:32 PM
Quote from: Barrister on August 12, 2009, 11:13:39 PM
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.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on August 13, 2009, 12:28:02 PM
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.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on August 13, 2009, 12:18:54 PM
Quote from: saskganesh on August 13, 2009, 11:39:28 AM
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.
Quote from: The Brain on August 13, 2009, 11:36:59 AM
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. :)
:lol: Doesn't it have a population in the millions?
The only cities I've been to that seemed more crowded were London and Boston.
Quote from: Caliga on August 13, 2009, 01:11:48 PM
:lol: 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.
Quote from: Malthus on August 13, 2009, 08:17:11 AM
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?
Quote from: DGuller on August 13, 2009, 01:42:22 PM
Is Israel's agriculture sustainable, though? Aren't Israelis depleting their fresh water sources at an alarming rate?
I think that has to do with a combination of drought and over-population.
In any case now Israel will have to get on the de-salinization project.
Quote from: DGuller on August 13, 2009, 01:42:22 PM
Is Israel's agriculture sustainable, though? Aren't Israelis depleting their fresh water sources at an alarming rate?
It was at one point the land of milk and honey. And I doubt that was just in comparison to Sinai; it was host to some remarkably complex, flourishing literate societies.
Quote from: DGuller on August 13, 2009, 01:42:22 PM
Quote from: Malthus on August 13, 2009, 08:17:11 AM
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?
Could well be, yes. Indeed, many of the explainations as to why the mid-east isn't as fertile as it was have to do with unsustainable agricultural practices, particularly salinization of the soil.
Quote from: DGuller on August 13, 2009, 01:42:22 PM
Quote from: Malthus on August 13, 2009, 08:17:11 AM
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?
IIRC giant sinkholes are forming around the dead sea becasue the water table has fallen so low since so much water is getting diverted for agriculture.
covercropping. mulching and planting more perennials usually helps retain soil and retain soil moisture, lowering the need for water diversion projects.
what they have to do now is build soil. compost (goat manure!) would help.
Quote from: Malthus on August 13, 2009, 01:53:26 PM
Could well be, yes. Indeed, many of the explainations as to why the mid-east isn't as fertile as it was have to do with unsustainable agricultural practices, particularly salinization of the soil.
I read some time back that stated the best guess of crop yields in ancient Iraq were approximately equal those of today using modern agricultural methods. The main reason given for the lack of improvement was that the irrigation salinated the soil. This is the reason wheat gave way to an extent to barley as time went on--barley was more resistent to the growing salination.