The Impact of Geography on Civilization

>>2436389

You are correct. Geography has a significantly stronger effect on the evolution of a culture. Not the other way around (meaning, Culture don't mould geography to their liking)

Fishermen communities who live near the sea, for example, have a very different cuisine, customs related to the sea and beliefs of the sea than a community of farmer from inland and vice-versa. A new immigrant from inland to the seas will first find himself in a strange place but he will adapt. He will not sit to wrestle with the sea to farm.

People who had some form of defined culture (even though the primitive kind) migrated a lot in the olden days. While the core of their culture, which was intimately linked to their language, religious and spiritual beliefs remained the same - the social traditions, dietary preferences, farming practices adapted to the newer geography - visible through the induction of newer deities in their core beliefs (not a replacement of it).

For example the Nordic-Germanic cultures - while a part of Indo-European subgroup, following the IE pantheon of Storm and thunder gods - adapted themselves to the freezing north and the motifs of life and fertility (survival on ice mattered) of the native cultures against the harsh freezing north gained a semi-antagonistic and semi-supportive pantheon (Aesir vs Vanir). Dietary habit changed, hunting and preservation was given importance. curing food material were given importance.

Compare it with tropical and sub-tropical cultures where season does not swing to extremities and rainfall provides varieties of agricultural products each season - here preservation is not the culture but rather serving anything fresh is preferred. Diet and cuisine are highly inclusive and focus on freshness rather than cured product.

Systems of Governing is the third aspect of it all. If you will look throughout history, societies have gone through similar phases of Preist-Kings-> Warrior-Kings-> Feudal Lords-> Monarchies to Empire.

If abos were transported to the Italian peninsula in 5000 BC would have Rome still emerged?

>>2436562
That's exactly what I was thinking. One example I used was that in some cultures in the Middle East like the Bedouin, whose style of clothing and living directly reflect their life in the deserts

>>2436586
The local pseudo Sardinians would kill them with obsidian weapons

>>2436389

Sure as fuck that style of governing or culture or which hand some peopke stroke their dick with isn't gonna change geography

more like the reverse

>>2436389
russians are autocratic because they exist on the european plain and steppe which can quickly be penetrated by invaders thus requiring a quick response rather than a debate
the settlements behind the urals require price controls on trade or the region would be poor, creating even more centralization
t. shirvan from caspian report

>>2436562
>>2436595

Yes, however, I will also argue that it is valid only for the primitive times and once a culture goes through a saturation point, that is to say, culture has evolved to a point where a social structure is in place for many centuries, people do tend to modify their surrounding if it is suitable.

For example, the Danes who created dykes in the same manners as the Sumerians used to, thousand of years earlier in the Marshlands of Mesopotamia. People also built dams in the plateau and mountainous regions to cope with season rains - a feat which was also done by Akkadians but not by their desert cousin south in Arabia.

The Mesoamericans and the South American cultures were also known for their manipulation of river courses.

>>2436698

Fascinating point anon. And historical records and even the latest archaeological findings support this fact. One may say that due to such vast plains, there was also the incentive to domesticate horses - for pastoral activities, transportation and war.

It is curious though that like the sub-tropical societies they never used horses for farm yoke. Or is there any example of such?