Thread:Eureka Enderborn/@comment-27097330-20170312034719/@comment-27097330-20170313020405

Maltalidenta Kwuitidherali wrote: ChazmanianDevil wrote: Maltalidenta Kwuitidherali wrote: ChazmanianDevil wrote: Maltalidenta Kwuitidherali wrote: ChazmanianDevil wrote: Maltalidenta Kwuitidherali wrote: ChazmanianDevil wrote: Maltalidenta Kwuitidherali wrote: Argali1 wrote: Maltalidenta Kwuitidherali wrote:

Argali1 wrote:

Maltalidenta Kwuitidherali wrote:

ChazmanianDevil wrote:

Maltalidenta Kwuitidherali wrote: I have one question; the Tauredain have an economy that isn't feudal? Yes. Tauredain is just a blanket term used by those of Numenorean descent and elves to refer to the people of the jungles. That extends from small nomadic tribes to port cities. Cities which, again, don't exist. Says who? Says reality. Oh boy, the queen of Eurocentrism strikes again. Do me a favor and look up the reconstructions of Tenochtitlan, Tikal or Teotihuacan. We're talking about jungles, here, Argali. Tikal and Teotihuacan are the only examples (of those given), and bad examples, due to how little being actually known. While, yes, there are some fancy ruins there that are classed as "ancient cities" we're talking about the mediaeval era here. That would not be a city. Teotihuacan fell in about the 8th century, and Tikal in the (late) 9th. We're well after that in LotR. Yes because cities existing in the south of middle earth is far more unrealistic than the Fellowship encountering no human civilization between Bree and Rohan. One could happen, the other has historical precedents that force it to be nigh impossible. I'm confused about the statement you're making here. Is it, "People in jungles can't build cities," or "People with Central American influence can't build cities?" The circumstances surrounding people in rainforest climates is always that they cannot formulate into societies that are long-lasting and forming cities, especially around the mediaeval period. That's why there wasn't any sort of "Mexica Flu", as there wasn't the population density for people to catch infectious diseases or the unsanitary conditions for them to develop. That is also why they were decimated by the diseases that were trivial to Europeans. 1. First, that's not even true. There were civilizations in rainforest areas during the Middle Ages. Large ones.

2. How would you logically justify that even if it was? Rainforests stop people from progressing? If people can develop into powerful civilizations in deserts they can do it in rainforests.

3. The "medieval period" cannot be used to apply to the Americas, because cultures in the Americas settled way later than cultures in Afro-Eurasia. The whole process of civilization was still happening, just late.

4. Historical precedent is never really that good of an argument because it's hard to see what had to happen and what merely did. Especially when comparing it to fantasy. So even if something did not happen to happen in our history does not mean it cannot.

5. The lack of one disease is not sufficient evidence that hat jungles equals no cities. Also, that doesn't even make sense. Rainforests were the cause of natives not being exposed to European disease? Okay explain how natives in Canada and the US also suffered tremendously. 1. Such as?

2. Again, they didn't do it at the same rate. They were late to the party, and so under-developed. Compared to the standards of Endorë, or Europe, they were terribly behind.

3. It very much can. The mediaeval period of Europe is what we're talking about here, which we can equate to the Americas. It doesn't matter massively what we pick, we see a large trend - Europe was always massively more powerful than them, especially so after colonisation (until those colonies then rebelled, basically).

4. Tolkien, many times, equated Arda to Earth. He tried, many times, to fit in a story about some (reasonably) modern people travelling to Tol Eressëa and learning about the culture.

5. It's an example. The spread of centralisation was not so great over there, due to the lack of war in general, and foreign invasion. It's all exponential functions, so it didn't take much to make a difference overall. 1. Khmer empire off he top of my head. Indonesia and Southeast Asia was actually full of civilizations despite being mostly rainforest.

2. They were late to the party because they settled at a far later point in time, not because the climate or location was geographically inferior.

3. The medieval period in Europe cannot be equated to the Americas simply because the two continents were completely speerate and incomparable until the 1500s. And despite the parallels made by the mod, the Tauredain are not in Central America, they are in the equivalent of Southern Africa.

4. He also recognized that area was not earth. And I also don't understand why you're equating the third age in arda to the High Middle Ages.

5. I don't think there's any evidence there was less war in the Americas and I think it's safe to assume there was plenty. Look, this is pointless, all you're doing is straw-manning your way out of everything. And how exactly am I misrepresenting your argument? Your argument is that complex civilizations with large cities are impossible and unrealistic in a rainforest environment. Is that correct? I have been countering that argument.