I still guess some will continue to call awakening like that since it’s pretty much supposed to be the equivalent to Spore’s tribal stage, but ages ahead in terms of accuracy.
I always write awakening. But I also always almost confuse it with aware. “aware” sounds like “awake” which is “awakening completed” so it should come after “awakening”, not before? If you red that too fast you probably don’t remember which is which. Or you have some super ability. Who even came up with awakening. Nobody’s asleep. Never was. Calling tribal awakening is like calling Twitter X. Its twitter. It’s never gonna replace the original name. They aren’t synonyms. If I can’t guess what the stage is about, by looking at its name, then its a terrible name. Even “5th stage” would be a better name. Call it friday. Why not. Nobody cared about names anyway.
Why not “post technologic, spiritual enlightenement following incredible stanley kubric monolith moment”? p.t.s.i. for short.
They need iron age technology to ride hors… wait actually that doesn’t make any sense. Thats just a problem with earth horses.
What if you had wings, and could fly. Would there be any barriers to world unification?
There are two ways for that to happen. The first is that, the sea levels rise, due to a natural disaster, your island is the only habitable place left in the planet. Or maybe you didn’t colonise too many continents in the first place.
The inhabited world may be smaller. Even if your tribe has a smaller land area, that may be the only land available, hence, you rule over the world. Taking over the world in awakening should be possible because of this option.
The second option is having a very large tribe. Now. The problem with this may be, not because of impossibility, but the dictatorship. Your control would be feudal at best. You can’t get authoriterian totaliterian control. Nobody would listen to you. We have a unified planet right here on earth. Its called the United nations. But it has very little power. Authorities like that always existed. The church, for example, was an early European union. It even had its own army, the crusades. Granted, it couldn’t control it much, and they accidentally sacked Constantinople when going to Jeruselum. But still, it was able to raise that army. What changes throughout history, is which powers do different levels of political entities get. Was the Iroquoi confederacy a unified state, or just an allience of different tribes? Both, to a certain extant, probably.
Until people care about them. That’s why the stage names are proper and not a bunch of random letters.
I couldn’t have guessed it was…
I personally think early civilization stage consists of two very different societies: herding societies and farming societies. Eventually, everyone becomes a farming society or dies, but early on, the herding societies aren’t at any disadvantages other than a numbers disadvantage. They invented wheels, they traded, they breed animals, they formed confederacies, and they invaded farming societies for pastures or to become royalty. Eventually with guns and trained spearmen, you simply cannot win without the numbers of a farming civ, but you most likely just assimilate into some other culture and rule without ever even learning to farm, that’s for peasants.
1 Like
I don’t think firearms were around in the ancient times…
3 Likes
I mean herding civs were still around pretty much until industrial. The mongols and their kin are still “around” though the Chinese and Russians forcibly assimilated them. A lot of the time they became warrior castes of otherwise farming civs, basically the entire origin story for Arabian peoples. They did the impossible though, and assimilated the farming people into their society. The last pure herding civs were killed in the 1800s, which is solidly industrial. Before guns and trained spearmen they controlled much of the planet, but the fertile lands of places like Russia, Ukraine and the Midwest were too temping, so they were pushed out, in perhaps the 1400s-1700s. All three of those are exceptional cases though, as the herding people or north american were totally down with using guns, and learned to use horses from the farming peoples, and russia and ukraine were collonized by farming peoples REALLY early due to some weirdness around the mongols, but had Cossack rebellions, and the Cossacks were basically a neo-herding people, like cowboys, who also possibly qualify as a herding people. It’s very possible I’m undergoing far more categorization than is necessary, and this is totally a false dichotomy, but I haven’t really seen anyone pushing for the inclusion of functional herding peoples or anything like that at all.
2 Likes
Is there really any difference between hunter gatherers and herders? You can domesticate dogs (30 000 years ago) and live a hunter gatherer lifestyle. You can domesticate cattle (10 500 years ago) and, still migrate and remain close to your meat source
Farming crops is the only major difference that the agricultural revolution caused because it allowed higher population densities in most places. And people could settle all year round. They had to settle down, because the food comes once every year, they have to store it during other times. They have to build a granary, and defend their crops while its growing.
Newcommen steam engine is invented in 1712 and industrial revolution is in 1760s. The herding civs ended much earlier than that. With the invention of gunpowder. In the 1200s The Spread of Gunpowder (800-1850)
The chinese invented gunpowder in 900s but they didn’t advance the technology that much. The mongols spread it to west eurasia, where rifles and cannons were invented. This changed the whole game, as previously, you could live in your castle and have your microstate. But cannons were an expensive technology. You need to have a large country to have cannons, all the engineers, etc. It lead to all those unifications and central kings having a central government.
It also broke the advantage of calvalry over the infantry of the settled peoples. Previously, you had the crossbow, but that wasn’t better than the longbows or the curved mongol/turkic bows. The only technology herding people couldn’t adopt is the gunpowder. You can only get gunpowder weapons and ammo from settled peoples. Which is what the mongols did. They used the chinese empire resources to invade iran and eastern europe. When the ming dynasty declared indipendance from the mongol yuan dynasty, the steppe was no longer a meaningful player. It couldn’t invade anywhere. The next time china’s invaded, it was by the manchu’s, which were a settled people in manchuria. Ukraine was taken by the russians and ottomans and it became a farmland. Previously it was invaded too often to became that. It was being used as grass to feed their horses.
They are just a settled people who had nomad roots. The mongols decided to have a capital at their old homeland. Karakorum became a very large city, they noticed that carrying all that food from china was so expensive. So they decided to have beijing as the capital instead.
Russian expansion into siberia mirrors anglo and spanish expansion into non urban americas.[1] It happened at similar dates. The natives couldn’t defeat settled peoples. Even if all the technologic advancements stopped in the 1400s, it would still happen again.
The cossaks are the soldiers in the russian army. Migratory people hired by the settled people. You never see the other way around, after the gunpowder. Industrialisation doesn’t have anything to do with herder lifestyle being wiped out, though it would give the final blow if it didn’t already happened by then.
3 Likes
Could there be species where herder people could fare for longer?
2 Likes
if they are bulletproof but susseptible to melee combat
charging elefants can have the same effect as cannons. when used against infantry. are elefants more expensive than cannons. chatgpt says yes.
well, herder people would lose the advantage eventually. i saw this video stone age tribe fought russia for 136 years
it depends on the circumstace. if they have terrain advantage, harsh climate, sociological advantage, as long as those remain, it can counterbalance technologic disadvantage
1 Like
But they still lack the potential for long-term survival atleast onpar with the settled peoples…
1 Like
Basically if there are resources on par with farming or mining that mobile peoples can access easier than farmers. As in, like, magic or something. You will loose to a population that can just throw soldiers at you unless you can slaughter them like mongols, or you have your own population.
1 Like
Every group of people has it’s own population…
It looks like something out of a dream…
2 Likes
It does. Good job, @woejoe!
Also, am I the only one who sees a lemon on top of black beans in the top half of the picture?
1 Like
Ah…I see now. It looks like the bottom portion of root vegetable.
1 Like
“Soilfruits in the sky”?