How do I justify that some civilizations become advanced city

>>52706366
natural resources and the means to make use of them is a snowball effect that some people do not have access to

It may also be that the gap was a lot narrower than we think, with northern Europe simply being less prone to write shit down and more fond of wooden architecture.

http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016/03/slaughter-bridge-uncovering-colossal-bronze-age-battle

>>52706366
>while others become barbarian tribes?

It's a lot easier to just rob rich people than it is to get rich yourself.

As such, barbarian societies likely have not changed because they get wealthy doing exactly what they were doing before, for less effort and more honor.

>>52706366
>genetic traits
>family structure (clans+inbreeding vs nuclear family+outbreeding)
>cultural trajectories
>snowball effect of institutional innovations
>snowball effect of resource accumulation
>randomly blessed with highly competent leaders
>specialised in something that paid off in competition with others
>environment
>exchange with other budding civilisations, or isolation

>>52706366
you don't really need to justify it if it happens in real life

>>52706366

Longer growing seasons closer to the equator.

That's actually the only reason.

File: sad.jpg (39KB, 625x415px) Image search: [Google]

39KB, 625x415px

>>52706494
>So much has been forgotten.

>>52706366
The savages are to live in the forrests and hills, which are hard to access.

The civilized folks live within and around cities. Cities themselves grow around markets, ports, and trade hubs in general. Cities usually are born next to rivers, because:
-It's easier to move loads to and from the cities that way;
-Plenty of water is a boon for agriculture, and you need that production surplus to get a population boom and trade;

The greater mass of producers, consumers and goods gets bigger and harder to manage. The surplus is enough to sustain people whose jobs relate to managing the work and goods of others, as well as protecting all this property from enemies from outsider and from within.

Some people can afford to sit around and think. People in general have more resources to experimente with. There are lots of roads, bridges and ports for all these people to bounce ideas of each other. Innovation happens.

>>52706902
Wouldn't civilization be entirely centered around the equator and uniformly fall off further north or south, then? That didn't happen in real life.

>>52706366
>implying there was a big gap between the greeks and the celts
Most of the roman roads in Gaul and Britain are either built on top of older roads or existed mainly for the purpose of allowing the legions to control the provinces.

I think your idea of what the ancient greeks were like is likely a complete fantasy.

>>52706902
Wet/dry seasons aren't that good for agriculture. You'd want temperate regions, usually.

And there are a lot of other important geographic factors to consider besides latitude.

Like, reminder that the Romans were completely in awe of gallic agriculture because they couldn't even fathom agriculture not being done by hordes of slaves instead of fucking ploughs, and most of their warmaking technology was from Spain and Gaul. The greeks used scrapers because the concept of soap eluded them.

The great temples of the hellenistic period were almost entirely based on phoenician architecture adapted for hellenic religious tastes.

>>52706366

>it's almost as if races differ in average intelligence

Funny the sort of things that make total sense when you stop trying to be a pussy leftist.

>>52707673
>races
So ethiopians are vastly superior to germanics

File: 64bfdd626170cb0735c8a5c404ea4e44.jpg (262KB, 943x1200px) Image search: [Google]

262KB, 943x1200px

>>52707474
>Wouldn't civilization be entirely centered around the equator and uniformly fall off further north or south, then? That didn't happen in real life.

All of the megasprawls where a billion+ people live in squalor are in the semitropics because that's the easiest place to support human life. Living conditions are shit because of the abundance of insects and other animals, but if we get nuked back to the Stone Age and lose all our infrastructure, technological capabilities and knowledge, civilization will probably restart from somewhere in SEA.

These videos are pretty neat, and might help you with your worldbuilding:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3PWWtqfwacQ

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aQSxPzafO_k

File: 1464496968536.jpg (88KB, 853x480px) Image search: [Google]

88KB, 853x480px

>>52707696
Naturally. The only field in which Germanics can claim superiority to anyone else is in destruction. Lacking the means to do this through honest skill and wits, as a Roman would, they often rely on treachery and tricking those who overestimate their ability to act like decent fucking human beings.
>Varus' legions were destroyed because he actually believed the G*rmanics who told him there was a rebellion in the far north that claimed innocent lives
>Napoleon the Great, despite the disaster of Russia, would've proven his superiority once more if his -own- G*rman troops didn't betray him
>The nations of Europe have meticulously guarded their borders through various treaties including the Dublin Agreement, which M*rkel violated only to later state that all nations of Europe must take their "fair share" of "refugees"

If anyone wishes to see the face of Satan, look no further than the G*rman: hair that resembles putrid piss and ooze, emotionless autism that can experience neither true fear nor true joy and a coarse tongue that sounds like infernal incantations even when describing ung*rmanic concepts such as kindness and morality.

The point that many here are missing is not that the Celts were primitives, but that their social structure was. So whatever their achievements in technology, they were crushed by the Southerners who were able to organize better than them.

>>52708008
>their social structure was
Describe me the social structures of the greeks and try to explain in what way you think they were somehow more advanced than celtic tribes.

Specifically what the fuck do you think were the social structures of northern greek states or the social structures of Sparta, of all things.

>they were crushed by the Southerners
The celts were absolutely not crushed by fucking greeks whose style of warfare was a laughable joke outside of the balkans and anatolia.

>>52706366
Some people are simply inferior.

>>52708041
in addition to that, there were celts (Galatians) that immigrated and just moved up to Anatolia and nobody could do that much to stop them.

>>52706366

There wasn't.

The "tech level" wasn't really that different. A roman gladius wasn't a rifle to a celtic sword. It wasn't the 1800s.

It was the society that was different.

File: germaniggers.jpg (63KB, 850x400px) Image search: [Google]

63KB, 850x400px

>>52707696

>>52708749
>swedes
>swarthy

nani????

>>52708749
> trusting the eternal anglo

>>52706366

Horses.

>>52706366
>How do I justify that some civilizations become advanced city states while others become barbarian tribes?

Weather and geography. Cities happen when you can plot down a bunch of people in one place and have them not starve, and advance from there through trade networks for what they don't have.
Barbarians never get that local dependency and just migrate if shit gets too hard to deal with where they are.


Also, remember to include Double Barbarians on the other side of your Barbarians, to cause migration pressures.

>>52706902
>genetics has nothing to do with it lol my only knowledge of this subject is Jared Diamond's book lol

>>52707696
>Ethiopians (you mean negroids when you say this, not pre-1000 BC Ethiopians) had any form of civilization
Wew

>>52706366
>Still no idea why there was such a big gap between Persians/Greeks and Celts/Germanic tribes
Climate, natural borders and access to resources

>Ctrl + F Guns Germs and Steel
>No results.

>>52706438
That's really what it is. Resources and leadership.

>>52712156
That's because people are having an intelligent conversation. Also, 3 posts above you, idiot.

>>52711658
Well they did. We have tons of archeological evidence for that. Metalworking, agriculture, domestication of animals etc. If you choose to ignore that then it's your problem, just don" t try to pass it off as science.

File: Bronze_Age_Collapse.png (619KB, 1132x636px) Image search: [Google]

619KB, 1132x636px

>>52706494
Oh hey, the Northern end of the conflict that caused the Bronze Age Collapse.

>>52707658
>The great temples of the hellenistic period were almost entirely based on phoenician architecture adapted for hellenic religious tastes.

I don't think you can make any kind of a case for Phoenicians being a barbarian people.

>>52707880
Decent redpilled individual detected

>>52707832
For some reason ancient egyptian dress gets me diamonds instantly

File: ancient egyptian clothing.jpg (40KB, 564x800px) Image search: [Google]

40KB, 564x800px

>>52712560
Have one then

>>52712572
Suberashii

Flipfag here. We're a country with a shit ton of resources, but the leaders are corrupt (The government decides how taxes are spent.) and the people are either passive or blinded by religion and tradition, or both.

Hope this helps your worldbuilding somehow.

>>52706366
Because some are lazy and prefer building house made of shit.

>>52711642

You do realize that if genetics was the matter, nowdays Iraq would be the most successful country on the planet like 3000 years ago, right?

>>52707474
Actually, it mostly did. You are just to much of a retard to realize that the Earth has still been warming up since the last Ice Age. As such, mankind moved farther and farther away from the equator, and each other as time progressed. Probably to get away from shitstains like you that can't be bother to learn basic crap.

Always seeking the next horizon, with hopefully less morons.

>>52711658
>implying there was any significant migration movement in Ethiopia
Even their shitty ass backwards tribes speak chamitic languages.

>>52712353
I'm mostly just saying that the greeks were for the most part backwards fucks, not that the phoenicians were savages.

The only "truly civilized greeks" in the sense of better than the celts were Athenians (a fucking tiny anomaly), Ionians (who were fully under Anatolian and Phoenician influence) and Sicilians (Phoenician influece also)

>>52711642
>genetics has everything to do with it lol my only knowledge of this subject is Carlton Coon' s book lol

>>52707474

It has been up to, say, the 1400s. Europe (not mediterrenean europe, at least) is bizzarely "northern" because of the Gufl Stream but has been a real powerhouse since not that many centuries.

Now, uniformely it wasn't at all, but still, it was mostly subtropical allright. The equatorial zone proper isn't that good for more than one reason.

>>52706366
The gap was actually really narrow.

Read most of the Europa Barbarorum material, and you'll find links there with archaeological and historical papers about 'barbarian' civilizations. That's just a start, there is so much we don't know about them.

As some people on this thread already said, most roman roads in the rest of Europe were built over the celtic ones (which were a network of roads, not a spiderweb-like structure like the roman one, where most of the important roads lead to Rome because of how centralized it was).

In terms of metalworking, the celts were miles ahead of the romans btw. And in some other areas too. There are not much roman scientists, only lawmakers. Celtic druids were invited and actually went to the 'mathematical geniuses gathering' in Alexandria a few times.

But yes, their society was pretty much feudal by the end of the La Tene culture, instead of slavery-based economics, and that meant they were MUCH less centralized and they could produce much less stuff.

Celtic chainmail, swords and helmets were of much better quality, but that's not good if you can only equip 10-20% of your troops with it, even if they're your best warriors and retainers.

And by the way, greeks were FAR LESS advanced than you think, please stop watching movies and taking them as actual history.

>>52717748
Also the romans were MUCH more numerous! Whenever the romans lost a battle it was like "Yeah, okay, we'll send two more armies". Whenever celts or germanics lost a battle it was like "Yeah, half of our tribe is dead, wounded or disorganized"

Romaboos are the worst. Maybe even worse than Deus Vult idiots or /pol/tards

>>52708749
>an Anglo that wants to be whiter than a Swede
What the fuck the indians gave him to smoke?

>>52717748
>And by the way, greeks were FAR LESS advanced than you think,
Did celts calculated Earth radius or made mechanical calculator? Oh no, they could not even write.

>>52717851
>Did celts calculated Earth radius or made mechanical calculator? Oh no, they could not even write.
Ogham were a thing. If writing is your main standard do note that we have no writings left behind by either the Harrapean or the Incas that are still clearly understandable to this day, and you're making the mistake of taking a few great men for the general direction of a society.

Copernicus doesn't change that medieval Poland was a shithole.

The Gauls used a slight variant of the greek alphabet. The celtiberians had developed their own alphabet. (And all alphabets ultimately came from Phoenicia).

>>52717851
See this >>52717951
Please just read a bit before posting.

File: 62d7ecc2a02aa1412f33d1ec279f9336.png (361KB, 640x480px) Image search: [Google]

361KB, 640x480px

>>52706366
>he hasn't read Guns, Germs and Steel

>>52717851

Aside from the ogham problem (not everyone knows WHEN it started, possibile before Caesar) your examples are... wrong, I am afraid.

The first is a scientifical observation, it's not really a technological achievement. It's more of a administration feat, oddly enough: the fact is that Eratostenes had a nice snazzy measurement of the distanc between the two cities, made by a metric fuckton of fiscal measurements of the land.
Impossible in Gaul and perhaps anywhere in the world.
(it's worth mentioning that this wouldn't have been possibile in Greece proper, both for geographic and administrative reasons)

The Antikitera thing is... interesting, exactly because of its uniqueness. Personally I don't think it makes sense to say that an unique feat of engeneering (possibily not even that outlandish per se) is a sign of technological advancement. Usually we don't think of the 1700s automatons as a something really important: the look at the cronographs they made.

I guess on the other hand architecture counts, but of course it's not architecture that makes armies win or lose.

>>52708665
Obviously you know nothing about Rome

Their tech level was far more advanced than Gaul - and technology was more than just weapons. When the Gauls built a fort, the Romans built a fort around their fort. When the Romans built a tower, the Gauls laughed because it was so far away, until they realized it was on wheels and could be pushed to their walls. They then ran in terror. The Romans, when unable to pilot their ships in the rough waters of the Atlantic to attack the Gauls on the french coast, they were able to mimic the Gallic style of ship and build a better one. The Romans could dig a 10-ft ditch around camp in a few days. The Gauls used their swords to hack at sod to build a pitiable dirt wall in comparison.

Should I go on?

>>52718137
Most of Celts were illiterate no matter what you say while almost every Roman and Greek knew writing and shitposted on walls or made letters.

>>52708610
Not only they couldn't do anything to stop them, but they were fucking terrifying and they were hired as mercenaries for almost ALL of the Successor Kingdoms because they would fuck up most of the other infantry.

To be honest though, celts were actually decent cavalrymen because they had contact with Macedonians pretty early in history, that's why they were hired as heavy cavalry for the romans.

But infantry-wise, they were top tier. For 200 years they fucking dominated romans in most battles, from the sack of Rome to Telamon.
And also romans had MUCH more troops and that gave them the capacity (not the ability, they both had that) to learn from their defeats and improve their tactics for the next time.

If a celtic tribe was defeated, poof, it was probably gone, or had to wait dozens of years to reach the peak of their power again

>>52706366
as someone who studies archeology, there weren't much different between them

>>52718158
>this romaboo fanfic
>gauls who had fucking chariots ran in terror at a tower with wheels
a million keks

>>52718158
Yes, they had more advanced siege warfare, something they got from conquering the greeks (thanks Archimedes), so fucking what? Read about actual technological advancements that each of the ethnic groups had, how they lived, etc.

I'm not saying one was better than the other, just saying that no one was actually 'more advanced' than the other, and the romans certainly didn't have a 'more complex or advanced social structure' as most people here claim.

The same thing you wrote can be said about the plough, about soap, about metalworking, etc. Each and every civilization has marveled about things that others considered completely average, common and mundane.

But saying that some civilizations were 'barbarians' is so idiotic

>>52718283
Also this, what the fuck where you thinking?

Also Caesar didn't use siege towers like that in the siege of Alesia, he just built a fort around it.

>>52718283
No, who ran in terror at the Romans coming in to fuck them up.

Individually, the Gauls were fine warriors. But in every major battle they got destroyed. They lacked siege technology, discipline, organization, and leadership. Romans had all of that. Even though Rome was sacked a few times, it was the Legions stomping around Gaul and not vice versa.

>>52718158
Also building a ditch and a fort fast around a city is not technology, it's discipline. Nothing to do with advancement, just with the amount of people that can sustain a profesional army or not.

>>52718324
>>52718316
Well I never said Alesia, and I never said they were barbarians. But to say there was no technological disparity between Gauls and Romans is just stupid. No, the Gauls were not "uncivilized" or vastly below Roman levels of technology. But to claim they were on par with Romans is just contrarian.

>>52718378
The gauls had actual functional sailboats that didn't have to hug the coasts. The gauls tore Rome a new asshole multiple both on the battlefield and off. Literally the only reason the Romans could pull it off was how intensely divided they were.

>>52718326
Gauls sacked Rome dude. They also dominated most of Europe for hundreds of years. They stomped their way through greek and macedonian lands into Anatolia.

They were hired as mercenaries all around the western world, gallic Cavalry was a much valued asset in most post-Marian roman armies.

Even then, it wasn't celts vs romans. It was just celts vs celts and romans.

Read some history, please. Yes, tribal armies didn't have much discipline. But neither did the romans till the Marian reforms.

Hannibal, one of the greatest commanders ever, who defeated dozens of roman armies, had a force consisting mostly of celts and spaniards, who made up much of the medium and heavy infantry, and almost half of the cavalry.

>>52706366
>Yes, I checked history. Still no idea why there was such a big gap between...
I couldn't say about the others, but in the case of Britain. It's mostly because the Romans wrote down that, that was the case, then proceed to kill off all the druids.

>>52718378
Read something, please. You're just thinking about movies.

Take a look at a noble or a celtic retainer's equipment and then look at pre-Marian romans. Marian reform legionaries were just copying celtic retainers (except for the celtic longsword, that did not fit roman fighting style)

I'm not saying that the legions were much better as soldiers as the celts were (they were professionals after all) but technologically, celts were on par, if not more advanced in most things except maybe architecture

And that's only because romans (and greeks, off which they based all of their early architecture) built with stone. Most celtic cities and villages had 3-4 story buildings, while except for public buildings, Rome did not, being a mostly 1-2 story building city. But yes, let's concede Roman architecture, since it's really amazing

>>52718446
>>52718413
Oh sorry, I forgot how we speak a Celtic language, copy Celtic architecture, have a Celtic legal system, use Celtic words every day, a a religion the Celts adopted is the 2nd most popular in the world, and how the great Celtic empire stretched for a large portion of the known world.

>>52718503
You speak a germanic language, the only reason your germanic language has latin borrowings is because you were conquered by gallicized vikings, and common law is derived from germanic customs.

Also this is a retarded argument as only about 10 million people still speak greek worldwide and their legal system is based on fucking 19th century greek law, which had only a vague imprint of romanness because of romaboo tendencies.

Persians use muslim sharia, a system based on arabic law.

>>52718503
I don't think we should discuss any further, you are making weak arguments to support your even weaker case instead of reading some useful stuff. Don't be a romaboo anon, go and read something!

It's nice to learn

>>52718503
"speak a celtic language"
You do
"have a celtic legal system"
Your legal system has never been roman either
"use celtic words every day"
You do
"a religion the celts adopted is the 2nd most popular"
The celts did adopt christianity under roman rule, it's the #1 most popular, actually.

How can someone unironically get in a discussion about ancient history when they say shit like this, honestly?

>>52718746
>You do
Technically he most likely doesn't, english has only about 60 celtic borrowings and some of them are through french which is germanized romance with a very thin celtic substrate

>>52718746
>>52718725
No need to be condescending. Im having a discussion, not an argument.

I dont know what movies you think I'm getting this from, I've read lots of accounts of the Romans in Gaul (which I know are greatly exaggerated) and my Latin professor constantly emphasized how discipline, organization, and technology is how 10,000 Romans could defeat many thousands more Gauls. The fact that there were mercenaries doesn't prove anything either. Highways, irrigation, large scale metal production, writing, are all things the Romans did better than Celts. This wasnt because they were "superior masterrace" but because of a more favorable climate and more contact with other advanced cultures of the day. And Rome was simultaneously waging war on many of its borders as it was at war with the Gauls.

>>52711642
I don't know who that is.

I know because I've actually moved around, lived at different latitudes and had gardens, so I actually paid attention to that kind of shit, but yeah blame some kind of book.

Rome fell because they overplowed and fucked up their local farmland and had to spend too much to import food to support the city. Everything else was a symptom of that hubris. Romans fucking loved plowing. They thought it was like deep dicking Gaia. Cock obsessed degenerates, the lot of them.

>>52718446
> Roman cities are made of mostly 1-2 story buildings

Romans pretty much invented the apartment complex, Crassus was so wealthy because he invested in real estate and turned almost all of his properties into apartments which he then rented out.

I will concede that Roman metalwork was not the best, I believe that prize goest to the spaniards with their steel and sword design being the best and was later copied by the Romans.

While certain elements of other cultures where better than the Romans, they were able to copy it and apply it on a massive scale. Roses strengths were their disipline and organisational abilities, in the form of their army, and their legal system. Now I recognise that many people have been commenting on the scientific advancement of barbarian societies, but those where primarily in specific fields such as metalwork or ship building and made them highly specialised. Rome was able to apply things on a massive scale and thus actually utilise those scientific advancements effectively.
However if we are judging the level of a civilisation, shouldn't we base it off of things like its legal system? After all that is what is important for organising large masses of people which is what civilisation essentially is. Seeing as to how most of Europe has a legal system based on elements of Napolenoic law, which intern is based on the Justinian code, itself based upon Roman law, and seeing as the US has based its government and legal system off of republican Rome, no one can deny the high standard and quality of Roman law. Even British common law draws elements from Roman law, despite being derived from Germanic legal systems.

t. A Roman

>>52719048
Rome fell because of loose fiscal policy and slaves forcing plebs to be dependent on the welfare state.

File: 1432670409817.gif (984KB, 400x225px) Image search: [Google]

984KB, 400x225px

ITT: Neckbeards confuse martial success for civilization and refuse to acknowledge agricultural and civil engineering feats

>>52707696
Surprisinfly, they actually wuz kangs n sheeit.

Then, as was often the case, muzzies ruined it.

>>52719227
>agricultural
Again, the romans were awed at gallic agriculture.

>>52719354
>muzzies ruined it.
Ethiopia is still majority christian

>>52719516
And had a large chunk of itself stolen by muzzies, and is constantly tly harassed by them.

>>52719638
>had a large chunk of itself stolen by muzzies
Somalia is not a chunk of Ethiopia (and the closest it came to be part of it was after the muslim conquest of Somalia), and the majority of Eritrea's population is christian

>>52707696
Well yeah, Germans are the destructors of civilization, they only learn enough to sperg, kill and maim. We have the luck than merkel will end the german people with his massive importation of muzzies.

>>52718158
>>52718158

Tech levels don't exist execpt in bad games, bruh.

The only sane example you go on is the the castrum. Which, well, was made by spades: I think gallic metallurgy was at a "level" alright for that.

>>52718200

Citation needed.

>>52711642
>genetics mattering in civilisation
Is that a meme?

>>52719939

/pol/ education.

>>52712353
Are you kidding? It literally sounds like the Phoenicians are constantly saying "bar bar bar" all the time.

>>52712638
>Flipfag
Who? Where?

>>52706366
History.

>>52706366
Clean drinking water and a stable food source suitable to a sedentary lifestyle + a defendable location.

File: 1487293355802742.png (241KB, 375x523px) Image search: [Google]

241KB, 375x523px

>>52706366

>>52706366
Adding on to what's been said, some people just don't really care about big fancy buildings, especially if they haven't been conditioned to "need" them.

Apathy is a powerful force.

>>52718283
The Celts didn't even use war chariots. They were basically just transport for rich people, like carriages.

Reminds me of a recent game I played,
The home tribe is seen as savages to most of the outside world due to a isolationist bent, and while a bit technophobic are overall resonate

The big tribe with a big ass city was built in the backs of slaves, which granted has been changed due to recent revolutions but even then they don't have the best tech

The guys that do have good engineering have no interest in buidling bigass cities and monuments and live in smaller rustic villages with central forges,

The last tribe are nomads but have a very good understanding of the wild

Point is that while superficially the big city is advanced it was kinda brute forced and is likely to bee superseded by another, which is why it's seeking alliances now no doubt, and each tribe had their own merits

>>52722797
Caesar described them using them, IIRC, at least in Britain.

>>52708665
>i know nothing about the subtleties of metallurgy
I just wish to see 500 years into the future where people will try to tell you that 1 ww germany was no different than post iraq usa technologywise

Holy shit the historical illiteracy in this thread is fucking incredible. Do you guys even know what a civilization is? You're seriously trying to argue that there's no difference between an urbanised society administered by a state bureaucracy, with public infrastructure and industries of mass production, and a grouping of small-scale rural chiefdoms who happen to have some nice metalwork. Civilization means social complexity, usually in the form of urbanism and/or a state polity. It has nothing to do with how cool you think their monuments are, who could win in a war, or even who had the 'better' technology. There were civilizations that lacked metallurgy or writing, that left behind no monuments or impressive art, and there were simple societies that left behind intricate masterpieces, massive monuments and had advanced technical skills. Seriously, read even the most basic anthropology or archaeology textbook. Leaen the difference between a chiefdom and a state, a rural and an urban society, a gift economy and a market economy, tribute and taxation, etc. Even if there's plenty of criticism of the term 'civilization' and how it's used, a lot of which I agree with, no actual scholar with any integrity would try to claim that the likes of the Greeks, Romans, and Persians weren't far more complex societies than the 'Celts' (a term hardly credible anymore) or Germanics. That's the kind of shit I'd expect from some romantic nationalist believing in noble savages, or maybe a 'progressive' type who thinks different societies are just people who dress differently.

>>52723616
Anyway, to actually try to answer OP's question; first off, there's no all encompassing set of conditions or processes which lead to social complexity or not. Early civilizations emerged in places like Egypt, Mesopotamia and China where agriculture had been practiced for several thousand years in fertile regions, and it's no coincidence that the first civilizations emerged in or near the first regions to practice agriculture. Then there were places like Greece or the Olmecs who didn't have the best land, but had strategic trade positions or adopted from other cultures. Aside from the first few 'cradles' of civilization, most complex societies adopted heavily from others, so civilization tended to spread out from core to periphery over thousands of years from places like China to Japan or from Mesopotamia to Persia. This is the most basic reason the Greeks and Persians were more advanced than the Celts and Germans, because they were closer to Mesopotamia and Egypt. Only much later would North Europeans adopt from the Romans and Greeks and eventually surpass them. But of course it's always more complicated than that; there's also the difference in soils between the poir but lighter and easily worked soils of the Mediterranean and the rich but heavy soils of Northern Europe, which were unproductive before new inventions like the heavy plow were introduced in the middle ages. And then there's the matter of trade, as the Mediterranean acted as a highway from ancient times and transmitted culture and social organization from east to west, while trade in the north took much longer to develop to such an extent and wasn't connected to any complex societies. There's even more to it than that, and that's not even getting into Eastern Europe, but I won't go on. I'll just stress that Europe's development isn't necessarily the only way things happened, and places like East Asia, the Americas, India, Africa and so on could have completely different paths to complexity.

Does anyone have that three image set on per-revolutionary French taxes, census, and measuring standards?
It got posted in some thread earlier today, but I don't remember where.

>>52718128 :/
You might as well read The Golden Bough.

>>52712572
Imagine this on a woman.

Those egyptians and their hot steamy weather...

>>52724481
>>52691914
>>52693514
>>52694289

>>52718746
>Your legal system has never been roman either
Civil and Common law both have roots in Roman law though. In fact, if you look at how torts are handled Common law is actually closer to the Roman system. Civil law has only one "tort" which is basically the "other" category in civic disputes. Meanwhile, Common law has a large array of various, very distinct and meticulously described torts, much like the Romans did.

If you live in the modern world and you live in a country that doesn't use a Roman-inspired system, you're living in a Sharia state. And Britain isn't in that state just yet.

>>52718316
>(thanks Archimedes)
But Archie died before the Romans could use his services

>>52723275
>I know nothing about the subtleties of metallurgy
Yes, we know. For one roman metallurgy was garbage until the conquest of Gaul and Spain.

>>52712638
>>52720939
Seconding.