Results 1 to 10 of 25

Thread: Migration Patterns / Country-Culture placement

Hybrid View

Previous Post Previous Post   Next Post Next Post
  1. #1
    Administrator waldronate's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    The High Desert
    Posts
    3,592

    Default

    Without a scale or climate information it's tough to tell how the patterns would run, but the general flow is reasonable.

    People migrate pretty quickly. I would expect to see basic hunter-gatherer folks spread at least a few miles a month after the initial population gets going (over a few thousand). That's 200 years to fill up a 6000-mile wide continent assuming 3 miles per month. Most likely population dispersal patterns would be along coastlines in temperate to warm climates.

    After the basic fill of the continents with hunter-gatherers somebody will develop agriculture and the cultural package of those farmers will tend to spread along with their crops to similar environments. Similar environments happen at similar latitudes and distances from the ocean so the mostly-horizontal continent is excellent for rapid spread of a single culture or two.

    If you haven't read it, I recommend the book Guns, Germs, and Steel by Jared Diamond. As I recall, some of his conclusions are a little peculiar but the discussion above is the broad generalization of the theory.

    On the subject of countries, remember that it's no coincidence that the size of modern countries (and states/counties within those countries) is very roughly proportional to the communication technology of the day. If all you have is walking then you will tend to have smaller empires / counties than those with horses and those will tend to be smaller than cultures with mechanical transport. As always, good road networks move you up a bit on the list.
    Last edited by waldronate; 03-05-2009 at 02:46 AM.

  2. #2

    Post

    Quote Originally Posted by waldronate View Post
    If you haven't read it, I recommend the book Guns, Germs, and Steel by Jared Diamond. As I recall, some of his conclusions are a little peculiar but the discussion above is the broad generalization of the theory
    That's the one where it explains Native Americans were more susceptible to disease because they didn't keep livestock, right?
    Last edited by Kestenvarn; 03-14-2009 at 08:04 AM.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •