Mountains

>>668699
Colder and better at defending yourself

I'm not that great at history, but from a survival aspect they are harder to assault and usually have fresh water and caves.

Basically mother natures castles.

You don't have to be near stupid people

You can build an observatory which increases your base science output by 50%.

>>668720
hAHA, NICE, i UNDERSTOOD THIS :)

It depends which regions we are talking about.

The peruvian coastline is arid as fuck, their mountains have a more temperate climate. Same with Ethiopia and Kenya. If you live in a fucking hot country, mountains are more suitable for agriculture/civilisation/etc.

File: allman-brothers-capricorn-a.jpg (75KB, 625x417px) Image search: [Google]

75KB, 625x417px

Pro: Allman Brothers' "Mountain Jam" would sound fantastic

Con: Mountain's "Mississippi Queen" would sound silly.

Mountain people make the best warriors. See the Chechens, Maniots, Druze, Scottish Highlanders, Swiss, Sikhs and Gurkhas as examples.

Unfortunately for them, they lack the organization skills of lowlanders so they always win battles but lose wars.

>>668699
Many settlers in ancient China moved to the mountains because of less centrlized control. And if you look at Norway and Switzerland, you will see that the feudal system were non existant.

The Altai mountains are the only place where Neanderthals (aryan), Homo sapiens (negro) and Denisovans (asian) may have lived together

>>668770

>Sikhs
>mountain people

> Pros
Nobody want to conquer and assimilate you and you will save your culture identity like forever.
> Cons
You will stay on top of the mountain for the end of eternity.

>>668720
Helicopters can go right over them, so be careful

10+ defense bonus
-40% movement rate

>>668699
Big and well organized states (normally) need complex bureaucracies. For that bureaucracy to be effective, the state needs good communications. Mountains and rough terrain in general make communications harder meaning that it's harder for the state to control those who live there. They also make trade harder, making ideas and progress less likely to arrive.

A lot of this can be countered to some degree when the state is in good terms with the mountain peoples (or the mountain peoples are the ones to own the state) but it's still endemic to some degree.

tl;dr pros: Freedom cons: Isolation

Mountain peoples tend to be xenophobic, disorganized tribals with a strong cultural identity. They usually butt heads with any form of central authority that tries to supplant their autonomy.

pros: minerals

cons: difficult to move around

Most things being said here are easily counter-argumented by the existance of the incas.

Cortez conquered the most powerful pre-Colombian Empire with 350 men and 50 horses. And the incas lived in the andes.


>>668936
Yes but in Norway there simply was no system to start with, they were esentially raiders and looters until denmark came in and suck the whole shit up.

>>669078

You confused Pizarro with Cortes though.
And Spain has is share of mountains too...

>>669078
The spaniards heavily relied on usupring incan administration. So there's no counter-argument.

The incans were mountain people themselves and therefore able to build a mountain empire.

File: 1410229870164.jpg (519KB, 1680x1050px) Image search: [Google]

519KB, 1680x1050px

>>668720

>>668720
sick reference bro!