The Map is Weird and Cut Off

[M1A2C Abrams]

https://imgur.com/uPCt8Um

So they show Ur and Lagash on the coast of the Persian Gulf even though they are quite a ways inland, Euphrates and Tigris also meet south of here and form the great arab river which empties into the Persian Gulf.

I'm thinking they're gonna have another map expansion in the future but Mesopotamia, Greece and Western Anatolia were all they could do for now. if this one is successful where they add in more cultures and regions. Arabia and Iran would be obvious choices next. Kinda funny that Egypt is going to be stuffed into a tiny corner in a game named after them. I'm all for having a full bronze age map.

[Toblm]

You understand that the coastline of the Persian gulf has changed significantly in the last 3000 years. Ur was a seaport on the gulf at or around 1000 BC. The change in the coastline was one of several reasons why Ur stopped being occupied.

During this period the Tigris and Euphrates also both dumped directly into the gulf.

[M1A2C Abrams]

Originally posted by Toblm:

You understand that the coastline of the Persian gulf has changed significantly in the last 3000 years. Ur was a seaport on the gulf at or around 1000 BC. The change in the coastline was one of several reasons why Ur stopped being occupied.

During this period the Tigris and Euphrates also both dumped directly into the gulf.

Is there proof of this? The region where the two rivers meet was historically a marshland and so it could be just as well that the people in Ur lived on the Euphrates where they wouldn't have to worry about saltwater ruining their fields if there was a drought upriver or their homes getting washed away in a wet season. and they could still sail down the river into the Persian gulf for trade or fishing.

Here's a description of Basra, the largest city in the Iraqi Marshalands from early settlers in the 600s AD https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basra

the people of Basra had only "reedy salt marsh which never dries up and where pasture never grows, bounded on the east by brackish water and on the west by waterless desert. We have no cultivation or stock farming to provide us with our livelihood or food, which comes to us as through the throat of an ostrich."

So it sounds to me like these were relatively minor regions which ancient mesopotamians didn't settle because it was easier living up north.

[Toblm]

Yes there is evidence of it.

https://www.researchgate.net/figure/The-Persian-Gulf-at-5000-calendar-years-BP-1-The-ancient-city-of-Ur-was-flooded-2_fig1_273165771

Is simply one image, and yes it predates my previous statement, much of the actual work on ancient river channels is behind paywalls which I do not have access through at the moment.

The general gist is the Iraqi Marshlands did not start developing in their current position until well after the Bronze age and that the modern Tigris-Euphrates-Shatt Al Arab channels did not fix in their modern positions until nearly 1200 AD.

One could make an argument that Ur could be represented slightly further inland or that an impassible marshland could extend slightly further. The general shape of the area is sound in accordance to the current scholarship.

[M1A2C Abrams]

Originally posted by Toblm:

Yes there is evidence of it.

https://www.researchgate.net/figure/The-Persian-Gulf-at-5000-calendar-years-BP-1-The-ancient-city-of-Ur-was-flooded-2_fig1_273165771

Is simply one image, and yes it predates my previous statement, much of the actual work on ancient river channels is behind paywalls which I do not have access through at the moment.

The general gist is the Iraqi Marshlands did not start developing in their current position until well after the Bronze age and that the modern Tigris-Euphrates-Shatt Al Arab channels did not fix in their modern positions until nearly 1200 AD.

One could make an argument that Ur could be represented slightly further inland or that an impassible marshland could extend slightly further. The general shape of the area is sound in accordance to the current scholarship.

This sounds like some nonsense created to try and find scientific evidence for Christian myths like Noah'. as I pointed out earlier Basra was founded in 600AD 600 years before the sea receded according to your map.

So someone had confirmation bias because they're trying to convert people to Christianity and made some egregious assumptions and errors.

[Toblm]

Originally posted by M1A2C Abrams:

Originally posted by Toblm:

Yes there is evidence of it.

https://www.researchgate.net/figure/The-Persian-Gulf-at-5000-calendar-years-BP-1-The-ancient-city-of-Ur-was-flooded-2_fig1_273165771

Is simply one image, and yes it predates my previous statement, much of the actual work on ancient river channels is behind paywalls which I do not have access through at the moment.

The general gist is the Iraqi Marshlands did not start developing in their current position until well after the Bronze age and that the modern Tigris-Euphrates-Shatt Al Arab channels did not fix in their modern positions until nearly 1200 AD.

One could make an argument that Ur could be represented slightly further inland or that an impassible marshland could extend slightly further. The general shape of the area is sound in accordance to the current scholarship.

This sounds like some nonsense created to try and find scientific evidence for Christian myths like Noah'. as I pointed out earlier Basra was founded in 600AD 600 years before the sea receded according to your map.

So someone had confirmation bias because they're trying to convert people to Christianity and made some egregious assumptions and errors.

Has absolutely zero to do with Christianity.

The flood myths are actually Mesopotamian in origin. And may well be related to one or more of the major flooding event that occurred in the Middle East. The inundation of the Persian Gulf being one of these.

As for the dates.
Basra was founded in 636 AD. Yes.
Pharaoh Total War is set in ~1200 BC. That's a 2000 year difference.
Mr Morner's image, is an estimate for ~5000 BP. Before Present. So ~3000 BC.
The map in Pharaoh Dynasties accurately represents a state between Morner's (and other contemporary scholarship) and more recent historical records.

[M1A2C Abrams]

Originally posted by Toblm:

Originally posted by M1A2C Abrams:

This sounds like some nonsense created to try and find scientific evidence for Christian myths like Noah'. as I pointed out earlier Basra was founded in 600AD 600 years before the sea receded according to your map.

So someone had confirmation bias because they're trying to convert people to Christianity and made some egregious assumptions and errors.

Has absolutely zero to do with Christianity.

The flood myths are actually Mesopotamian in origin. And may well be related to one or more of the major flooding event that occurred in the Middle East. The inundation of the Persian Gulf being one of these.

As for the dates.
Basra was founded in 636 AD. Yes.
Pharaoh Total War is set in ~1200 BC. That's a 2000 year difference.
Mr Morner's image, is an estimate for ~5000 BP. Before Present. So ~3000 BC.
The map in Pharaoh Dynasties accurately represents a state between Morner's (and other contemporary scholarship) and more recent historical records.

Well what you're saying is ridiculous and you don't have any proof so i'm just gonna dismiss it out of hand.

[Toblm]

Originally posted by M1A2C Abrams:

Originally posted by Toblm:

Has absolutely zero to do with Christianity.

The flood myths are actually Mesopotamian in origin. And may well be related to one or more of the major flooding event that occurred in the Middle East. The inundation of the Persian Gulf being one of these.

As for the dates.
Basra was founded in 636 AD. Yes.
Pharaoh Total War is set in ~1200 BC. That's a 2000 year difference.
Mr Morner's image, is an estimate for ~5000 BP. Before Present. So ~3000 BC.
The map in Pharaoh Dynasties accurately represents a state between Morner's (and other contemporary scholarship) and more recent historical records.

Well what you're saying is ridiculous and you don't have any proof so i'm just gonna dismiss it out of hand.

I provided some proof. There's an entire academic paper attached that image.

But here have a few more:
The Geographical History of the Mesopotamian Plains, G. M. Lees and N. L. Falcon
https://www.jstor.org/stable/1791234?origin=crossref

Shoreline reconstructions for the Persian Gulf since the last glacial maximum, Kurt Lambeck
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/0012821X96000696?via%3Dihub

Early State Formation in Southern Mesopotamia: Sea Levels, Shorelines, and Climate Change, Kennett and Kennett
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/15564890600586283

Eustatic changes in sea level, Fairbridge
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/0079194661900040?via%3Dihub

You can deny the science behind how the shoreline of the Persian Gulf developed over time as much you want. CA Sofia isnt going to change the map to fit your opinion after they clearly did their research.

[M1A2C Abrams]

Originally posted by Toblm:

Originally posted by M1A2C Abrams:

Well what you're saying is ridiculous and you don't have any proof so i'm just gonna dismiss it out of hand.

I provided some proof. There's an entire academic paper attached that image.

But here have a few more:
The Geographical History of the Mesopotamian Plains, G. M. Lees and N. L. Falcon
https://www.jstor.org/stable/1791234?origin=crossref

Shoreline reconstructions for the Persian Gulf since the last glacial maximum, Kurt Lambeck
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/0012821X96000696?via%3Dihub

Early State Formation in Southern Mesopotamia: Sea Levels, Shorelines, and Climate Change, Kennett and Kennett
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/15564890600586283

Eustatic changes in sea level, Fairbridge
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/0079194661900040?via%3Dihub

You can deny the science behind how the shoreline of the Persian Gulf developed over time as much you want. CA Sofia isnt going to change the map to fit your opinion after they clearly did their research.

I doubt you read all that tbh.

Also you're saying CA did their research, but it's more likely the map is cut off for a later expansion.

[HB]

Originally posted by M1A2C Abrams:

Well what you're saying is ridiculous and you don't have any proof so i'm just gonna dismiss it out of hand.

Fool of a Took, he gave you good info, and all you prefer wikki and your uninformed opinion.

[M1A2C Abrams]

Originally posted by HB:

Originally posted by M1A2C Abrams:

Well what you're saying is ridiculous and you don't have any proof so i'm just gonna dismiss it out of hand.

Fool of a Took, he gave you good info, and all you prefer wikki and your uninformed opinion.

I want proof. He found a bunch of guys repeating what he said but they can't explain why it happened beyond "God was angry."

[Toblm]

Originally posted by M1A2C Abrams:

Originally posted by HB:

Fool of a Took, he gave you good info, and all you prefer wikki and your uninformed opinion.

I want proof. He found a bunch of guys repeating what he said but they can't explain why it happened beyond "God was angry."

None of the academic papers concerning the geographical history of the Mesopotamian region and shoreline make any reference to "God was angry."

3 basic factors explain the changes in the shorelines of the Persian gulf:

Climate Change, post glacial optimum maxed out sea levels, after which they dropped somewhat.
Sediment filling: Every delta carries sediment, which accumulates in the delta.
Tectonics: The Middle East is a very tectonically active region, tectonics change the course of rivers, shift ground ect.

Now if you read the articles provided, or any of their source articles. This is all explained.

Or you can continue to deny the science in front of you. But know for a fact, the coast of the Persian gulf represented in TW Pharaoh Dynasties is an excellent approximation of where it should be during the period. Ur was a coastal (or coastal adjacent) city during the period. And no map expansion in the Persian Gulf is going to change the coastline near Ur no matter how "weird" you find it.

[M1A2C Abrams]

Originally posted by Toblm:

Originally posted by M1A2C Abrams:

I want proof. He found a bunch of guys repeating what he said but they can't explain why it happened beyond "God was angry."

None of the academic papers concerning the geographical history of the Mesopotamian region and shoreline make any reference to "God was angry."

3 basic factors explain the changes in the shorelines of the Persian gulf:

Climate Change, post glacial optimum maxed out sea levels, after which they dropped somewhat.
Sediment filling: Every delta carries sediment, which accumulates in the delta.
Tectonics: The Middle East is a very tectonically active region, tectonics change the course of rivers, shift ground ect.

Now if you read the articles provided, or any of their source articles. This is all explained.

Or you can continue to deny the science in front of you. But know for a fact, the coast of the Persian gulf represented in TW Pharaoh Dynasties is an excellent approximation of where it should be during the period. Ur was a coastal (or coastal adjacent) city during the period. And no map expansion in the Persian Gulf is going to change the coastline near Ur no matter how "weird" you find it.

If it was hotter back then than it was today the middle east would be completely unlivable. The amount of sediment required to form an entire country over a period of 1,000 years is utterly insane and the Mediterranean coast of Egypt should be entirely different too if rivers can make entire countries like that.

Also both the Tigris and Euphrates feed into the Gulf and the volume of water is insubstantial to the world's ocean, so a loss of flow wouldn't cause major sea level changes worldwide.

[Toblm]

Originally posted by M1A2C Abrams:

Originally posted by Toblm:

None of the academic papers concerning the geographical history of the Mesopotamian region and shoreline make any reference to "God was angry."

3 basic factors explain the changes in the shorelines of the Persian gulf:

Climate Change, post glacial optimum maxed out sea levels, after which they dropped somewhat.
Sediment filling: Every delta carries sediment, which accumulates in the delta.
Tectonics: The Middle East is a very tectonically active region, tectonics change the course of rivers, shift ground ect.

Now if you read the articles provided, or any of their source articles. This is all explained.

Or you can continue to deny the science in front of you. But know for a fact, the coast of the Persian gulf represented in TW Pharaoh Dynasties is an excellent approximation of where it should be during the period. Ur was a coastal (or coastal adjacent) city during the period. And no map expansion in the Persian Gulf is going to change the coastline near Ur no matter how "weird" you find it.

If it was hotter back then than it was today the middle east would be completely unlivable. The amount of sediment required to form an entire country over a period of 1,000 years is utterly insane and the Mediterranean coast of Egypt should be entirely different too if rivers can make entire countries like that.

Also both the Tigris and Euphrates feed into the Gulf and the volume of water is insubstantial to the world's ocean, so a loss of flow wouldn't cause major sea level changes worldwide.

Did you hear me say it was hotter? No. I said climate change occurred.

There was not an entire country formed. Only the some 130 miles between Ur and the modern coastline. And that section of the Persian Gulf would have been particularly shallow, even when under water so... not nearly as much sediment as you think. And the modern coastline is... well modern so thats some 3000 years from the BAC (7000 years from the Morner image provided earlier in the thread)

And its not the Tigris or Euphrates that caused sea level change. Its almost as if major climatic shifts occurred between 5000 and 1200 BC. Perhaps you should read up on the 4.2-kiloyear event, the Middle Bronze Age Cold Epoch and the Bond Event 2.

You've got a lot of reading ahead of you. I applaud your journey from ignorance.

[HB]

Originally posted by M1A2C Abrams:

I want proof.

He provided proof. You are not interested in scientific fact, but prefer your uneducated opinion.

Originally posted by M1A2C Abrams:

He found a bunch of guys repeating what he said but they can't explain why it happened beyond "God was angry."

He found/posted experts in the field, explaining the latest academic/teaching consensus. None have explained what you quoted.

[Spartan.117]

Originally posted by M1A2C Abrams:

Originally posted by Toblm:

Yes there is evidence of it.

https://www.researchgate.net/figure/The-Persian-Gulf-at-5000-calendar-years-BP-1-The-ancient-city-of-Ur-was-flooded-2_fig1_273165771

Is simply one image, and yes it predates my previous statement, much of the actual work on ancient river channels is behind paywalls which I do not have access through at the moment.

The general gist is the Iraqi Marshlands did not start developing in their current position until well after the Bronze age and that the modern Tigris-Euphrates-Shatt Al Arab channels did not fix in their modern positions until nearly 1200 AD.

One could make an argument that Ur could be represented slightly further inland or that an impassible marshland could extend slightly further. The general shape of the area is sound in accordance to the current scholarship.

This sounds like some nonsense created to try and find scientific evidence for Christian myths like Noah'. as I pointed out earlier Basra was founded in 600AD 600 years before the sea receded according to your map.

So someone had confirmation bias because they're trying to convert people to Christianity and made some egregious assumptions and errors.

Germany in 2040 will be a islam state. What did christians do wrong now? did those source hurts your feelings?