Let's assume the following scenario in 200 CE:

VHS

Ad Honorem
Dec 2015
4,266
Brassicaland
#1
This is a speculated distribution of humans in 200 CE:
1) Australia is an uninhabited continent; all humans were wiped out. Let's leave the cause alone, since this is irrelevant.
2) The classical four empires: the Han Empire, the Roman Empire, the Kushan Empire, and the Parthian Empire, still thrive.
3) Siberia is practically uninhabited; an offshoot of Han settlers carried Native Siberians away and settled near the current Yekaterinburg.
4) North Africa is settled; only a few larger tribes survive in Sub-Saharan Africa.
5) A few larger tribes survive in North America; in South America, humans hardly hold their ground.

What will be the fate of Australia and the Americas?
How will these four empires interact?
What may happen in Sub-Saharan Africa?
 
Jun 2012
7,042
Malaysia
#4
^
More likely, the Slavics - if they remained disorganised & thereby disunited - wud hv been divided up among the Romans, the Parthians & the Kushans. And the latter three, all of them being IE people, might hv formed a grand pan-IE alliance (if such an alliance was at all necessary, in the first place) to battle, defeat & conquer the Han, and subsequently assimilate the Han.
 

Chlodio

Ad Honorem
Aug 2016
3,386
Dispargum
#5
The population of any species will rise until food or another limiting factor is reached. Therefore, uninhabited or under inhabited areas will eventually be repopulated.


If Central Asia is uninhabited in 200 CE, Huns might not attack the Roman Empire in the fourth century, but Genghis Khan's Mongols will eventually fill the vacuum and have a similar effect on history as in ATL.


Without Huns and other barbarians attacking in the fifth century, the Roman Empire might last a little longer, but it still had fundamental weaknesses that would prevent its survival beyond an additional century or two.



You didn't mention the Arabian Penninsula. Assuming it's still inhabited, the forces of Islam will still attack the Roman, Parthian, and Kushan Empires with probably a similar result to ATL.


Given the levels of technology and technological progress, I don't think Europe would come into direct conflict with China until at least 1200 CE, and perhaps not until later, again, more or less in line with ATL.


Basically, the OP has removed only those peoples who had only a marginal impact on history.
 
Jun 2015
5,535
UK
#6
i don't see the difference. People in Europe didn't know China existed, or it's existence at best was shady until Marco Polo. So Romans wouldn't have travelled there.

And few Europeans went to sub-Saharan Africa at that time.
 

VHS

Ad Honorem
Dec 2015
4,266
Brassicaland
#7
^
More likely, the Slavics - if they remained disorganised & thereby disunited - wud hv been divided up among the Romans, the Parthians & the Kushans. And the latter three, all of them being IE people, might hv formed a grand pan-IE alliance (if such an alliance was at all necessary, in the first place) to battle, defeat & conquer the Han, and subsequently assimilate the Han.
In this scenario, the Slavs are sinicized and a second Han Empire is built around Yekaterburg.
 

Similar History Discussions