The Limits of Geographic Determinism
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 2 พ.ค. 2024
- Play War Thunder now with my link, and get a massive, free bonus pack including vehicles, boosters, and more:
playwt.link/krautwt2022
Subscribe to my friend Ravignon here: / ravignonch
Within a week he will publish a video examining the failure of neoliberal policies in creating peace between Palestine and Israel. Until then, you may enjoy his series on the history of Quebec: • Québec: A Discourse on...
Over the last few years of making videos the most engaging and interesting criticisms of my videos have come from people who I would call Geographic determinists. People who believe that the way certain socio-political structures are shaped, is heavily dependent upon and influenced by the geography that surrounds a society.
I want to make clear that I do not dismiss geographic determinism, I find it to be an interesting position, and have to concede that more often than not - geographic determinists are correct.
I would merely like to explain why I, am not a geographic determinist.
Let's have a "chicken or egg debate" about what matters more: Geography? Or Society?
►You can support my channel on Patreon here: / kraut_and_tea
►You can also support me on PayPal here: www.paypal.me/KrautandTea
►You can support me on ko-fi here: ko-fi.com/kraut
►You can follow my twitter here: / notreallykraut
►You can also follow me on Instagram here: / el_kraut
►You can discuss this video on my subreddit: / kraut
►You can follow and watch me on twitch here: / der_parrot
►You can join my community, give feedback and talk to me here: derserver.xyz/
Sponsor (0:00)
Intro (1:09)
A question about mountains (2:49)
The known unknown of Cambodia(4:09)
A few more examples (8:49)
The problem with ecology (11:27)
The case for policy (13:24)
Outro (17:07)
You might be interested in this video too: • The Myth of Racial Pol...
Thank you again, and don't forget to subscribe to watch more.
![[Full Episode] Hell's Kitchen Thailand EP.12 | 28 เม.ย. 67](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/xCjbu5t25Pw/mqdefault.jpg)
Play War Thunder now with my link, and get a massive, free bonus pack including vehicles, boosters, and more:
playwt.link/krautwt2022
Good game but the Grind is Simply too much if you don't have premium.
I personally abandoned the game since October 2020 and prefer Squad and GHPC for tank combat and DCS world for Air combat.
What I can recommend is to Strictly play realistic and have a back up Air Realistic Battle crew with a highly armed plane (Any nation that has P47) to farm money.
I also recommend Germany as your Nation since they have access to both US and RU equipment.
I would not recommend this game.
Congrats on the Sponsor!
11:29 i see you're well aware of elder scroll world map
@@josephiscancelled2732 Just never go beyond 5.3 and the game is great fun.
As a Swiss person I can confirm that our mountains are holding us hostage - we want to go to the local Migros, nope, mountain. We want to visit a friend down the road? What road, only mountain, also you're Swiss you don't have friends only mitarbeiter. Want to protect yourself from a foreign invasion? That's possible, but in return it'll take 3 hours to go from central Switzerland to the French side even though we have an incredible train network and it's relatively short as the crow flies, because mountains.
Man that sounds lonely
That's is so relatable.
We found him! The one who had to walk to school uphill both ways
Depends on where you you live. In the central plateau (where most swiss live) its not a big deal at all. It becomes more of a problem down south. From Zurich to Geneva I bearly have any longer then I would to Stuttgart.
Those mountains HAVE protected you from foreign invasions, many times. I'm sure they have their down-sides, too. But most nations would kill for geography that makes a policy like National Redoubt even POSSIBLE. Switzerland is like an island of stability, amid the invasions, occupations, and changing borders that have transformed the rest of Europe around Switzerland, for the last 3 or 4 centuries- Which is 99% because of those mountains.
I love when the Aztecs said “Lakes are a social construct” and the lake instantly disappeared into hard soil perfect for building a large city on it
The Spaniards completed it by draining the lake entirely
the dutch agreed and copy pasted a couple times
@@tj-co9go they didn’t though, Mexico City still has lots of problems from the bad land filling in the lake
@@furrywarriors small reservoirs and canals remain, but the land is mostly, like 95%+ dry now
@@tj-co9go and successfully fked up the environment, creating sinking buildings, ridiculous drought in rainy area, pollution, mass extinction of wildlife etc.
Geographic determinism is definitely one of the more alluring theories out there. It offers a number of very convincing case studies which are hard to argue against. But as you point out, it too has its limits and areas where it fails - like all theories in International Relations & state building.
States and human societies are among the most complex structures we have ever created. And because of this complexity, it's very useful to have these theories as they reduce complexity and can point to the most important aspects of a case study.
What I don’t understand however is that so many people who are interested in state building and geopolitics adhere/identify with one particular theory as if it can explain everything. Instead of using theories as tools to understand our world better, many seem to use it as a base for an almost tribal identity. People who always say “I’m a geographic determinist” or “I’m a offensive realist” or anything else seem to be missing the point: These theories are not there for you to choose a side like a club in football, but as tools to critically examine complex issues.
And just like with tools, there is no “single super-tool” that can be used to do everything. A hammer works great in certain situations, not so great in others. The same goes for theories like geographic determinism.
Anyways, great analysis!
I think it's a very attractive theory from a political perspective, because it doesn't apportion blame. Societies are rich and poor for reasons ultimately beyond their control. Even if Africa was made poorer by European colonialism, geographic determinism says that Europe and Africa were put in those positions of strength and weakness, so that one could colonise the other so effectively, through their geography (chicken and egg). It doesn't accuse African civilisations of being too disorganised and inept to keep pace with European technology and mount an effective defence against colonisation, nor does it accuse European civilisations of being exceptionally immoral and bloodthirsty to take over most of a continent. Both were acting rationally given their geographic starting hands.
@@Croz89 That is exactly what Jarod Diamond argues in _Guns germs & steel._
How come the Europeans first got all the guns germs and steel?
I strongly believe in both "geographic determinism" & "offensive realism". But to view everything in geopolitics through these lenses is a gross misrepresentation of the nuanced complex realities of historical and current events. Also, both of these theories have their positives and negatives; their soundnesses and shortcomings.
@@Croz89 africa in particular was kinda screwed when it came to geography. they had so many real bad diseases that really reduced how urban the peoples could be. even inn disorganized tribal societies people still died of those diseases often. trying to build any state or urbanization in those conditions is no easy task. sure exceptions exist, the congo for instance is a great example, but it can't be denied those factors put a severe stress on trying to urbanize. hell the reason african wasn't really colonized until after the 1850s was europeans died so insanely fast that they stayed out until anti-biotics were invented.
plus: the sarahra. its not that technologies spread easier from east to west, its that the sarahra is a gigantic barriar that stops most communication between regions and societies. it wasn't until the Portuguese started sailing the coast that communication even began
@@sovietunion7643 The geographical issues I hear most about are lack of navigable waterways, lots of natural barriers partitioning the continent up into chunks and the Sahara cutting most of the continent off from the rest of the world. This meant in a lot of places in the interior trade was difficult so most civilisations lived in relative isolation from one another, mainly as small tribes. Larger kingdoms did exist of course, especially near the coast, but their trade was limited to caravans and ships that were able to come from one of the few trade routes available by land or sea. Thus, the theory goes, huge parts of the continent technologically stagnated, and even the more developed kingdoms were slower to advance than European or Asian civilisations because they didn't have the abundance of trade connections many of those civilisations had, through navigable waterways, land routes, and coastlines, from both nearby civilisations and ones on the other side of Eurasia via the silk road.
I like to think of geography almost like a starting deck for society. It provides the initial conditions and clearly has a large role to play in how civilizations develop but ultimately it is always how the civilization itself uses that “starting deck” of available resources that determines how it ultimately develops
That's a very good way of looking at it. It gives some countries a starting advantage but in the modern day, it's very much possible for two countries with similar geographies such as North Korea and South Korea to end up in different places.
Agreed. Geography is a springboard, not an absolute. Once a culture has formed then geography becomes more of a "nice thing to have" rather than an absolute.
@Ricky Smith basically the geography opens up many paths that can be travelled all with benefits and problems while society is the one that moves down one of the paths and tries to keep the problems at bay.
@@darthutah6649 thats the point, geography will only get you so far. Its how poeple use it and how strong the societies it made to effectively use it will be a determining factor.
pretty much. isolation comes into play as well. europe and asia are a massive long land mass. thats why europe got horses. the acceptable climate for horses in mongolia stretched from pacific to Atlantic. in africa and america the climate for name a thing is just that area. south africa and slightly less south africa are VERY different. but tldr geographic determinism IS important. its just not the only factor.
As an Italian I can think of many examples of how societies can completely wreck their incredible geography.
Yeah. But at least we still get to enjoy the incredible food those decadent societies made. All the "successful" societies have the worst food.
@@TheSpecialJ11 yea, at least when we are the sick man of Europe we still have a great living standard and great affordable food. If UK becomes the sick man of Europe now it will be a lot tougher for them.
@@TheSpecialJ11 Laughs in American.
(I mean, technically we just blend all the best food from other societies into a big buffet, so does it count? Most food was already invented by the time we got here.)
(And let's face it, most people's favorite American food is Italian anyway. 😄)
@@TheSpecialJ11 American food is food. It just has a side effect of an early death
Brazilian gang rise up
As a Cambodian, it is a delight to see a depth analysis of our history. I see people wrote about Mogolians, Thais, Vietnamese, Javanese, but never Khmer. What was largely forgotten is that Khmer Empire used to one of the greatest empire in Southeast Asia history due to our geographical standing, but what was supposed to be our greatest natural strength has became our biggest weakness too. Our ancestors were so focused on agriculture that they have neglect to build more on sea trade hence the rapid decline of Angkorians and the rise of many Southeast Asia archipelago empires. If you closely look, you can see the patern that the abandonment of Angkor was an effort to move the capital closer to trade routes (South) hence Phnom Penh, which is the capital now and the forefront of where Upper and Lower Mekong river meet (which they can move goods through water toward the sea) and closer to Kampong Saom, Sihanoukville (the only deep water port we currently have).
Thank you, Kraut for share an interesting analysis on our history.
Love cambodia 🇰🇭 ❤️ 🇮🇳
Extra History did a series on Angkor Wat.
I wonder what you’d think of it.
To be fair, you're pretty much the best civ to pick in Civilization 6. So there's that.
That's probably the dumbest comment I ever written but anyway, here, everytime I hear of Cambodia I think it's an African country at first.
@@akshatchoudhary2055 tell me what the leader's name
I love that the map used in the thumbnail and throughout the video is just a map of Tamriel. There’s a strong geographic determinist case to be made for the success of the Dark Elves and Argonians (volcanic mountain ranges and swamps) in protecting their independence from the Cyrodiilic Empire.
Yes; there's also the inhospitable desert terrain of Hammerfell allowing the Redguards to defend themselves, but also limiting their expansion to the north(mountains of High Rock) and east(mountains of Cyrodiil). Likewise, there's Orsinium that just gets obliterated over and over again due to its piss-poor geography.
The three living gods might also help.
@@niIIer1 This might sound batshit insane, but in a way, geographic determinism helped create ALMSIVI - Red Mountain contained the Heart of Lorkhan, which in turn allowed ALMSIVI to achieve apotheosis. Without Red Mountain - a geographic location - there would be no ALMSIVI or modern Dunmeri culture.
The Tribunal is what kept Cyrodiilic empires at bay, not geography. The Kamal Akaviri launched a successful invasion on Morrowind until the ALMSIVI interfered and drowned them all. The province was incorporated only when the Tribunal could no longer spend power to protect their borders, and, when facing Numidium, decided to negotiate their surrender and incorporation to the empire with Tiber Septim. And before the Tribunal, Nords, Nedes, Dwemer all made successful invasions of Morrowind over and over, and after the Tribunal, the Argonians managed to conquer half the province as well.
@@FernandoGomez-hg4rn The Dwemer were living in Morrowind before the Chimer/Dunmer even arrived in the province, so that wouldn't necessarily be fair.
The Nords did conquer the province for a short amount of time, but it was only because no one in the province was able to consolidate power - they were fighting against disparate city states and tribal communities, who kicked the Nords out after the Dunmer and Dwemer consolidated into one power bloc.
The Argonians invaded the province at their weakest point - most of Morrowind's infrastructure to the north was devastated, Vivec City was destroyed, the Oblivion Crisis severely damaged the northern houses, and a political crisis destroyed Great House Hlaalu. Even then, the bruised and battered armies of House Redoran managed to beat back the Argonians, who would've likely had assistance from the Hist. There would only be one feasible way to achieve such a counterattack, and that is through taking advantage of Morrowind's treacherous terrain.
Thomas Sowell had an alternative term that I think made much more sense and that was Geographic Limitations. Basically the future is as wide open as the geography allows. So geography isn't destiny, but it will constrain and influence what a society can and will do. Which is why you can have places with very similar geographies with radically different outcomes.
But societies can use their geographies to their benefit under the right circumstances.
I'm not sure geographic constraint is the right concept either. Geography sets more than just the hard limits, and indeed, few if any geographic constraints are ever truly hard limits anyway. Marching an army over the Himilayas would have consequences. But it is not necessarily impossible. Growing cash crops in Singapore is possible, but largely pointless given the societal factor of land prices, access to markets, and population density. The difference between the US oil industry disappearing overnight and becoming the only oil that the US uses is a few tens of cents difference in price that could be caused by some economic shock from a politically motivated trade war on the other side of the world.
@@petersmythe6462oddly specific at the conclusion but I got my fingers crossed for 2023 kick off of hostilities.
Just like genetics - they determine sort of a "hard cap" on your abilities. It's up to you and the society around you to cultivate those abilities to their highest potential. Then again, knowing how to utilize the geography is just as much if not more important.
@@redryan20000Genetics actually don’t determine a hard cap on one’s abilities. Epigenetics shows that there are countless non-genetic factors that control how one’s genes will express.
For example, if you a fat, you may have a gene that significantly contributes to your being fat, but the description written on the back of the gene doesn’t simply say “This gene makes you fat.” When you look closely it would say “This gene may cause weight retention in the presence of X amount of Y chemical, or in periods of X degree of stress or deprivation, or in prolonged residence at X altitude or nearness to water, or given X exposure to sunlight.
And, that same gene could also express paradoxical effects, like resulting in extraordinary weight loss given other very specific conditions. This is true for all genes. They aren’t just legos with a single function, and they can change each generation due to the experiences and conditions of each individual, so that even the genes of a fetus who develops in the womb of a stressed and hungry woman may change to be more predisposed to retaining fat and gaining muscle, as an adaptation to the hard world they may be being born into.
It's literally the nature vs nurture debate, except on the societal level vs the individual level. It's ok to see the merits of both without demanding one supersede the other. It's like wanting to be the best basketball player you can- you can control your attitude, training regimen, and mental development and skills. But you can't control whether or not you are a freak of nature who is 7 feet tall with an 8 foot long wing span and explosive jumping and lateral movement. Some things are outside of your control, but that doesn't let you off the hook for controlling the things you can.
it's a bit disenginiune I think to compare these two examples. culture establishes itself around geography, not the other way around. it builds the foundation and especially early on in history it was the only driving force really as people arent better or worse suited to use geography based on genetics. but after civilisations are established your argument takes full force, Egypt grew and rose to such a monument of civilisation because of the nil, but what the society developed to afterwards is a mix of both.
Policy wise: its essentially whether we should let the elite thrive at the expense of the masses because there may be small benefits for the masses overtime (nature) or should the elite use their resources to help uplift the masses to a better footing immediately (nurture).
Some would extend this debate to a capitalism (nature) versus socialism (nurture) debate or a free will (nature) vs determinism (nurture) debate.
@@dariusgunter5344 there is a certain baseline of culture that all humans share. While culture cannot in it's infancy effect geography, geography in turn cannot pull culture too far from its baseline.
@@civilengineer3349 The carrot and the stick
Geography does influence things by providing obstacles and challenges to a society.
However there often is more than one solution to a challenge.
Regarding the arrival of threvada Buddhism, it came to Angkor via thr increased sea trade with Lanka and Burma. So again it's a chicken and egg problem.
Indeed, and it's ironic that the "life is temporary" guys made their theology self fulling by building crappy structures that soon fell down so everyone forgot about them lol.
@@SirAntoniousBlock That's not ironic, though. It's consistent.
Mindblown. This debate is honestly pretty fun. And I'm learning a lot about overshadowed history and geography through this.
@@SirAntoniousBlock it's not ironic that's literally their intention
@@DieTreppenwitz Yes I understand that, the irony is people having a philosophy like this or nihilism which is self annihilating lol.
Hello! Peru, where the Incas were situated and Mexico, where the Mexica/Aztecs were situated are both lands of great fertility and agricultural potential. Since their proximity to the equator, these mountainous regions are actually the most appropriate lands for agriculture as they have constantly mild temperatures and a lot of rainfall. The lowlands surrounding them are actually worst in this regard. The Pacific lowlands of Peru are deserts and the Amazonian lowlands are jungles, which are infertile. In Mexico it's more varied, bit then again, Mexico has multiple dominant cultures.
Thus, in this case also, I think that geographic determinism holds water.
-- Not that I'm in favour or against it - I'm simply uneducated on the matter.
Fully enjoyed the video as always. I'm Argentinian and one of the single best arguments against geographic determinism was said by one of our first intelectuals, Sarmiento, got to be President latter on his life. On "Civilization and Barbarism" he described our main river ("de la plata" or "La plata river") like a Latin American Nile or Euphrates, but the problem for him was that the gauchos (argentinian cowboys) were so stubborn that would rather jump to the river with a horse and try to swim against the flow instead of learning how to use a ship
That in and of itself is an argument for geographic determinism, that the climate and the landscape shape temperament. The Pampas will shape strong tough men, while the riverbanks will shape industrious people
@Melvin Encinas Cabrera long story, but basically argentinian intellectual class of the early 1800' belived that common people lacked european civilized values (that's why we made a a lot of immigration projects for europeans at the time and ended with more european people than of our own)
@Melvin Encinas Cabrera He hate in neighbors too. He speak how ‘Brazilians came from the jungle’ before going to ask Brazil for money.
As an argentinian who lives in a city overlooking the Paraná river I applaud your commitment and success with the word "Río".
el shío de la plata you may wanted to write.
@Ricky Smith calm down
@Ricky Smith take a breather
@Ricky Smith “buddy boy”💀💀💀💀💀
You mean “Rio Negro”?
Luck is what happens when preparation meets opportunity
Successful civilization is what happens when the right society meets the right geography
What counts as a successful society?
@@pumchixmsp4054 white
@@Loromir17 yellow*
you are wrong, a society is nothing fixed or stable. it changes as such there is no right society meeting right geography but only a question of time until the people living there change to a society that takes advantage of their geography.
@@Loromir17 try explain Singapore, S Korea and Japan. Even Taiwan has a nice HDI.
As a geography student, I really liked that you criticised geographic determinism, as it's often kind of a given because of the bubble we're in. I also liked that you critices Jared Diamond's work, as this too, is seen as logical as some of the lessons we've had about it are largely based on his ideas.
It is extreme ironic, because until the Lebanese civil war, Lebanon was nicknamed "Switzerland of the Middle East".
(And Beirut was called the "Paris of the Middle East", although that is also probably related to the French mandate).
The region of Lebanon in antiquity was wealthy trading hub.
They sold purple dye.
It is actually doubly ironic because Lebanon was once called Phoenicia, and one of the wealthiest regions on Earth.
@@MCArt25 They’re not exactly the same but very roughly yes.
Good geography is like great running shoes. They won't turn a paralysed person into a champion, but they certainly help an average runner and can push naturally good runners further.
Im native Khmer, and I have never heard anyone connect the abandonment of Angkor with the change in religion. So thankful that you talk about our civilization. Love your content!
Edit: highly recommend you come visit siem reap.
Btw is that Tamriel at 11:30 👀
I was thinking the same about the map.. :D
It is. Gave me a good laugh.
@@Deathshade347 What is your counter point?
@@devinmes1868 The map at 11:30 is indeed the map of Tamriel, though I can see how my comment is a bit ambiguous.
@@Steau02 Avatar fits.
"Mountains are great barriers"
Hannibal: I am going to pretend I didn't hear that.
Simon Bolivar: Nobody told me that.
Napoleon: Show them the painting.
Jose De San Martine: Mountains are a suggestion.
Xenophon and Spartacus scaling mountains like they're nothing
Mountains ARE great barriers in a sense that you can occasionally sneak a push through these mountains if you determined enough and don't mind much about attrition, but you can't sustain this push if thought these mountains is the only way to supply this push.
Hannibal went through mountains, but he lost almost all his elephants, deliberately didn't carry heavy equipment (that barred him from sieging any decently fortified roman town, including Rome itself) and, as Rome dominated the sea at the time, had to rely mostly on his local allies for supplies and reinforcement (and as the number of local allies becomes smaller his position becomes more and more untanable)
Napoleon went through the alps and get away with this only because he managed to make Piedmont fold quickly and managed to exploit Austrian ineptitude as his forces were starving quicker then initial garrison of Mantua.
Bolivar and San Martine had plenty of support and supply across the mountains for not to worry about keeping their lines of communications with Venezuela and Argentina open.
@@hyperion3145 Xenophon and Spartacus were GTFOing through mountains, not conquering anything beyond them.
Sometimes, determination is enough for powers to invade inconvenient locations. And other times, winter will freeze & starve any invading power.
You kinda proved his point. Part of the reason all those people are considered among the greatest military minds in history is because they overcame the massive geographic barrier mountains present.
I love this channel and the conversations that it sparks. The conversation between geographical determinism and “cultural determinism” is particularly important, but only due to the strong lenses through which most “academics” view history. As an analogy to the physical world, if I have a microscope, I can see a cell, but I cannot see the stars. Conversely, if I have a telescope, I can see the stars, but I cannot see a cell. Similarly, viewing history through one lens only limits what can be comprehended and the horizon over which history can be understood. Once these limitations are acknowledged, history can be viewed through many lenses and seen as a rich tapestry of influences, each contributing part of the puzzle.
That being said, geographical determinists have a strong initial postulate: geography creates benefits and limitations with which societies must directly contend. In other words, societies are incentivized to find solutions to or exploit their geographic circumstances. Thus, society structures itself in a way that optimally addresses these geographic circumstances, leading to incredible headstarts or adopting systems of governance that trade future prosperity for current safety and stability.
However, as Kraut points out, there are a myriad of examples where beneficial geography, which should have led to prosperity for its inhabitants, ended with comparative poverty, or limiting geography, which should have led to poverty, ended with comparative prosperity. Kraut has argued, echoing the New Institutionalists, that institutions - he often refers to it as a culture to be more easily digestible - are the real determinants of economic and political prosperity. There are a plethora of examples Kraut could cite here from Acemoglu, North, Ostrum, DeSoto Weingast … etc. (I am sure are a ton more in the non-economic literature).
Geographical determinists argue that culture is molded by the environment while “cultural determinists” argues that any environment is surmountable with the right culture. Thus the chicken and egg argument mentioned by Kraut. However, maybe this is misleading. Maybe both geography and culture affect the structure of society exactly in the way these two schools of thought believe they do. If we assume culture changes to address environmental challenges, then environmental challenges are overcome by cultural changes, which in its broadest sense, both sides are likely to agree.
Then why are they at odds with each other, you might ask. Consider that geography does not easily change (there are arguments over what constitutes geography, which I will not sweep under the rug), but culture can be in many different geographical circumstances. Conversely, culture does change but is sticky or has momentum. The momentum of culture means that a culture developed to face one particular geographic challenge could exist in a geographical circumstance where that challenge no longer exists. Thus, a culture that held an empire together without modern communication technology could exist in a small nation-state without an empire. As such, the cultural benefits of holding the empire together, whether it is from more specialization or access to strategic resources, could outweigh the detriments of creating a culture capable of holding the empire together, for example, a large centralized bureaucracy that pays off political factions with bureaucratic careers. Without the empire, the small nation-state’s economy collapses under the weight of an unwieldy centralized bureaucracy. Yes, there is a better way for the small nation-state to operate, but that is not the culture they inherited. The culture will ultimately change, whether it comes from internal reform or external pressures, but the society with the culture will have to pass through a process of poverty until the conditions are right for a change. This may indeed be a long time if international institutions are used to “prop up” the cultures, functionally creating the state equivalent of a zombie corporation.
The transfer of culture to different geographies helps explain the phenomenon that Kruat cites in his video. Similarly, culture could move from geography to geography, picking up cultural characteristics that overcome each new geographic challenge. If this is the case, it is conceivable that a lucky culture could randomly move through a series of challenges that constructs a truly resilient culture, capable of overcoming any new challenge. This resilient culture would dominate all other cultures with which they come in contact. I’m going to stop here and note that this is not a moral argument nor am I attempting to say that any one culture is superior to another. I am just following the logic to the extreme.
So, both geographic determinist and “cultural determinist” are right, but they both fail to understand the timeframe and inertial elements in history. That is why I find this conversation more a function of academic ego than of science. However, the geographic determinist is more correct further back in time while the cultural determinist is more correct as we approach modern times. I’ll leave this one to you to figure out … since you got this far.
I think a decade or two from now, we will look back at this conversation and view it as we look back on nature vs. nurture now. It takes both concepts to make sense of the diversity of outcomes. Instead of arguing about who is right, we should be discussing where the two schools of thought connect.
Keep up the great work Kraut. You inspired me to write a ridiculously long comment.
A comment I enjoyed reading; hear hear to schools of thought being tools to use in conjunction to understand a given subject from more angles rather than being avenues for intellectual tribalism
Can you give an example of this superior culture ?
Interesting topic, and it always sparks debate. I think there is a distinction between what could be called 'strong' geographic determinism, and 'weak' geographic determinism. I myself fall into the weak determinism camp. The primary difference is that the weak variant basically says "If you don't have a coast line, you will not become a seafaring culture, if you live in a dessert, you are never going to be known for your crop exports, if you live in plains or steppes, you will not be known for your timber, etc". Geography determines the pieces a culture has to play with and establishes certain limits under given technological conditions. But the culture still plays a MASSIVE role in determining how those pieces, those geographical assets, get used.
Great video, I enjoyed it!
Well said
Exactly my own thoughts
Well, even that "soft determinism" has lots of problems of you look at it closely. EG a big part of our worlds crops come from areas way to dry to farm, but with huge irrigation systems.
@@CG-eh6oe This is true to a point, but none of those countries are at the top in world production. There is always going to be comparative advantage. And irrigation is a good example of what I said about "under given technological conditions". They were only able to produce a sizable amount of crops after altering their environment.
That said, some of the earliest civilizations arose in areas where some degree of cooperation was required, and these were typically areas which were not ideal but not terrible either. Sumer in Mesopotamia is a good example of this, since the construction and maintenance of irrigation canals requiring an organized workforce were a key part of their agriculture.
The way I see it is that geography determines the floor and ceiling, and which part of that you fall in depends on the society. It is undoubtedly true that China has a much higher ceiling compared to Siberia (albeit these are two extreme examples). The problem is that when you try to simplify something as complex as modern society to one of hundreds of aspects, who also have influence on each other. It has similarities to the nature vs nurture argument, but geography vs society is even more complex, and can't be boiled down to one thing, but we can recognize that they both provide baselines. There's only so much you can do with a limited amount of resources, no matter how skilled you are with them
I honestly never thought the Inca would be relevant to channel topics that commonly come up. But I'm thrilled to see some analysis into their civilization, and hope to see them sneak their way into more videos in the future
Second this.
I’m a big fan of reading/listening to geographical determinists (like Peter Zeihan for example), yet I still listen to Kraut when he poses more social/cultural reasons for why nations are the way they are. Why? Because they are both right. Countries evolve based on many factors and if you only pay attention to one, you will miss the bigger picture. At the end of the day, you need both the Chicken and the Egg. Great video.
I like Kraut for including more factors in to explain something as complicated as how societies and countries end up the way they are.
Reminds me when the science community a century ago formed two groups of which agues and debated if light is a particle or a wave. In the end, both are correct.
Kraut, you're not being quite fair to Diamond's theory about EW diffusion being faster than NS diffusion.
What Diamond actually said is that *crop plants* have a tough time diffusing north south because adopting to changes in the way day length varies over the year is hard. This is true and not faldified by observations about ocenic travel or domesticated animals.
No, he does say technology has a hard time moving North to South, but he also says that the EW/NS theory and most of his theories lost their relevance in the age of the discovery.
As someone who followed geography studies I'd like to quote Paul Vidal de la Blache, french geographer, considered to be the founder of modern geography as he said "nature propose, societies dispose". Environnement doesn't predicts societies development path, it's how societies take the best of what the environment they evolve into to their advantage based on their political, cultural and belief systems that shape this development.
But it does play a role.
It’s due to the extinction of the North American horse that ensured that native empires would never expand to the size of old word empires.
That's a BEAUTIFUL quote. Thanks for sharing it.
But I do ask myself: why do political, cultural and belief system themselves take a certain form?
@@Me-yq1fl They are the exception. Not the norm.
12:59 In defense of Jared Diamond, he was referring to the time before the age of discovery and the beginning of sea travel.
To further your defense. Jared Diamonds reference to the greater domesticated animal abundance wasn't to explain technological or societal development, it was to explain the natural resistance to disease that allowed the Europeans to conquer the America's.
@@benjaminpaull247 to further further the defence. The reason why Native American societies were bound to fare badly in relation to European invaders was their lack of immunity against such diseases, especially smallpox, leading to catastrophic death rates
@@catsnads01 To further further further the defense, it also relates to use of animals for transport and utility. Horses weren't in the Americas until the Europeans arrived to facilitate fast transport of people and goods and there weren't domesticatable livestock to stabilise food supply and assist with agriculture.
To further futher futher futher the defence. Jared Diamond is a pretty cool name so we should hear him out.
@@TheSpearkanto further further further further the defense, the greater relative prosperity of the Native South Americans compared to the South American societies post-colonization doesn't really count for much when those more prosperous societies were so easily conquered. Diamond uses geography to explain how Europeans came to be the dominant military power in the world, thus allowing them to conquer others and enrich themselves. I don't think he ever argues that geography made Europeans more prosperous than Native South Americans, just more powerful.
Also, Diamond did not make the point about domesticated livestock only regarding the fertile crescent, but actually all of Afro-Eurasia. This is where the point about domesticated plants and animals more easily spreading East to West vs North to South comes in. I'm really not sure what Kraut was trying to say when he claimed Diamond was wrong about it. It's pretty obvious that climates vary as you travel North to South and domesticated plants only grow in certain climates.
This is easily one of your most foundational videos you've put out; alongside India/China's Society-or-State essay this includes some of the most basal information and concepts you can find on history and social science. Combine the two and you have seventy perfect minutes to introduce someone to not just the rest of your work but the study of history in total. Perfect work.
12:10 That is cutting out a large part of Jarred's argument as to how European societies were able to conquer pre-Colombian societies. Europe's access to live stock provided a massive advantage not only in terms of food, cavalry and animal power for farming, but also from the germs that were developed over the centuries from interacting with such animals, such as the flu, influenza, small pox, etc. This last point is what really defined European dominance over pre-Colombian societies and this is something that is strongly driven by ecological differences between Eurasia (which had domestication) and North/South America (which had no large domestic animals).
Thank you, he dumbs it down to make it seem like politics are just as important. They're not.
@@colm9419 "They're very likely not" is an honest engagement here, you have no ability to empirically draw your conclusion. History is not a hard science, even from the geographic determinists model.
It did have one large domesticated animal. The Llama, native to the Peruvian Andes. However, its domestication was not enough to create the pseudo biological arms race that occurred in the urban center of the old world, which eventually guaranteed that any subsequent contact between cultures of the two continents would result in biological devastation for the natives of the Americas.
@@Me-yq1fl true, but meh, syphilis 'tis but a scratch compared to the stuff Euros brought to Incas and Mayas and Mexicas. They never stood a chance.
Kraut is, at the moment, saving money for more artists to work on his 5 hour long Dutch history series, so a lot of these recent short videos are a bit rushed. I bet if he wasn't on a tight schedule with tight funds, he would have dived deeper into Jared's argument.
I think a more nuanced view is that geography is a major (maybe the most major) factor that influences a society. But geography has different effects on different society.
In a non seafaring society the ocean is a major blockade for them, but in an ocean going society, it is a major benefit. The geography effects them differently but it still has a major effect on them.
The South America example was something I just thought about a few days ago. I noticed similarities between Argentina and the US and investigated further. That area was prosperous until 100 year ago.
We never were prosperous, just the landowning elites were, the majority of Argentines back then were as poor as nowadays
@@lucasm7781 Reality of South America. Like someone commented here about italy, South America is a good example of how society can wreck geography benefits.
south america and south europe have earily similar paths , shows you wich part of europe colonized where. Society and history people, society and history.
This explanation of the dicotomy between geographic determinism and social determinism, and how they shape the development of societies, makes this video one of the best one's you have made so far. When you analise all of the videos you have made throught this lens, they take a very different meaning! Thank you! Excellent content!
Great video Kraut. Here we see again and again that reality, more often then not, it's more complex than we'd like to believe. The flaw with geographical determinism is it's very premise: determinism. If you boil down to *just* geographical factors, you will probably find, as kraut has pointed out, many flaws and counter examples, bacause it's not just geography, it's many factors combined with geography that give way to how a certain society will work and develop.
Each time I watch you're video's I find myself in a prosperous debate finding reasons and ways that contradict some of you're statements and at the same time admiring you're work and learning new stuff (here the south american plain thing) too. You make it incredibly fun watching you're videos and manage to keep you're audience informed and to an extent smart. Great Job.
What a great video Kraut, for sure one of the best you have made recently, maybe even the best. Love your content, please keep up the good work.
Extremely well put. Geography has much explanatory power, but there are exceptions as well. Both geography and society must be examined together. Love your stuff!
In your China explanation, my thinking was: "So the reality is probably something more along the lines of a mix of both. The fact that the geography of China made the development of strong state structures along with the nature of the cycle of Chinese state creation and destruction interact in such a way that the cycle both emphasizes the geographic challenges of and is itself re-emphasized by the geographic challenges."
So... "It's a mix of all of the above"
just out of curiosity: what did geographic determinists predict about china that turned out to be wrong?
they have been predicting its imminent collapse for 50 years.... but any time now... lol
@@Kraut_the_Parrot I mean a lot of social determinists also predict that one. Predicting china will collapse is a popular pastime of many people.
@@Kraut_the_Parrot taps watch, look at the time, *all numbers are BE WRONG ABOUT CHINA*
@@Kraut_the_Parrot But how? China is in a very good position. Russia/the Soviet Union has not had any reason to attack them, Korea is too small for that, SEA countries too and India is limited by the Himalayas. Not only that but their population is massive.
For me it looks like a natural superpower not a society doomed to collapse.
@@Testimony_Of_JTFI would assume that many cite the fact that there are many cultural divisions in Chinese population and that as chinese government is hard at work trying to suppress or mitigate those differences, they are inevitably moving toward separating again.
China has many other problems including population imbalance and corruption, but I dont think things will come to head for a while. What I expect is that chinese leadership will shuffle around as government officials jockey for power until government itself starts losing hold of power. Then shit is going to get real.
The way you connect different topics and viewpoints is just pure genius.
What a bombshell of a channel have i stumbled upon when I clicked on a video about the Danube... Man you just make my head explode multiple times a video because it gets so hard to keep up at times.
I would love to indulge in these topics and discuss my points of view in the comments but i honestly don't have anywhere enough time to research thoroughly enough so that i feel prepared to enter a discussion here.
Also you have probably the most flawless and perfectly understandable pronunciation i have ever heard, this is incredible. In 3 hours of footage of you I haven't seen TH-cam's Auto Subtitle Generation do a single mistake, that's how understandable it is.
Either you are an insanely well educated individual thats part of the highest academic elites and still has time to put so much effort in TH-cam or your research and video production workload must be brutal. The precision with which you dissect political statements as well as philosophical views to me is incredible, especially how broad your knowledge base is. And its honestly also kinda scary to me because you hold a lot of power over the worldview of people that watch your videos and don't question at least controversial or key statements of yours.
Can't really put in words how impressed I am by this content, there have been minor side sentences of yours, some even part of the sponsorships that i shouted out as "and why the hell isnt that thought at school before we get to chose e.g. what subjects we wanna chose???" E.g. how you explained the importance of the french language for everyone who's interested in history. Imagine you'd actually tell children at school what languages are useful for what, except for just "well it's spoken in these countries, it's so and so hard to learn, those countries culture is in that way similar or different to our countries'" and so on. Crazy. My live might have gone in radically different directions just with those informations at the right time...
The whole section dedicated to the Khmer was so interesting! makes me wish schools paid more attention to eastern history. As always, great video. Felt identified when you represented the rivalry between Argentina and Uruguay lol.
I agree.
the second a school starts talking about eastern history, kids will stop listening ... they won´t even study math because "no real application" lmao
I'd say that ultimately it's society. But society is usually shaped by the geography, like how parents shape their children. But societies, like children, are their own beasts. Once they're "done", their decisions are the things that matter the most.
Ah. An endless loop.
sOcIeTy
One thing I've noticed about this video (and something that I like) is that it's not as conclusive as other videos of yours. It's inviting. It comes from the perspective of a person who has listened to many geographic determinist arguments and wants to present their own arguments in favor of societal developments, while also recognizing that geographic determinists have a point.
It encourages the viewer to try looking at both sides and make conclusions on their own, which then encourages them to do more research overall on a given subject. In other words, it's a lovely invitation into the world of geography vs society debates rather than a finale, and I love this video for it.
I'm loving these little bite sized videos. The longer stuff is dope but these one offs about assorted things are cool
As a Vietnamese I say the Annamite Range is what keeping us prison in the most eastern part of South East Asia. When the sea level rise most of our coastal regions and flat regions will be the first to submerged by the ocean. It's a curse, we can't "West ward", we can't even seek refuge in the ranges because those mountains is constantly flooded.
You can West ward to India though. The Munda tribes in Central India are supposed to have found their way.
That's a stupid statement there. Look at the dutch, they can build a whole country that is constantly getting flooded. We even have more resources than they do. So please stop whining about geography - Vietnam is blessed with good geography, the communists are just too corrupt to do anything.
@@rutvikrs They did so by bouncing through Cambodia, Malaysia, Burma and the Andaman Islands. After that the Munda tribes spread throughout all of eastern india, from Bangladesh up to Awadh in Uttar Pradesh, as well as Malwa and Gondwana in Madhya Pradesh and Maharastra.
You guys need buildings elevated above the ground and construct seawalls along your coast. Eventually, you'll have to push west into Laos and Cambodia. Best of luck to Vietnam, fastest growing economy in the world and an economic miracle. Y'all are about to hit the 100m population milestone.
Well, if we follow the geographic determinist playbook, I can think of another society with growing population pressures, a shortage of land, fenced into a narrow strip of coastline by mountains. It's time for Vietnam to build ships and go a-Viking!
So I have had very similar thoughts to what is in this episode. Thoughts like “how does a nations geography shape their development and history?” This is really informative and I think it’s great! Keep up the good work!
Thanks for the channel recommendation 😍
Looking forward to your future recommendations 🙂
I say it every time but I'll say it again, always happy to see portugal brought up on this or any channel! Tho especially this one cuz it's always interesting and I love the art. Good job Kraut and krew
Appreciate the videos, Kraut. Keep up the good work and don't tire yourself out.
I do find the geographic determinists have a lot of good points & that geography can be a major advantage in some contexts for respective nations (and the times they are correct seems to back this up). Of course, it is not absolute & just because a society/nation has a strong geography, it is very clear without the correct management of your geography, it won't be an advantage. Geography can give you an advantage, it is certainly not a guarantee of a successful society/state. Great video as always
Thing is, the quality and features of society always depends on numerous factors.
Geography is a significantly important part one, but not the main or only one
I tend to find that they use one single good point to explain everything that countries doing. It's not unique to them, we all do it from time to time.
Thank you endlessly Kraut. I always felt uneasy about the simplicity geographic determinism, however appealing it seems in the first place. Now I understand better why geography is not everything.
Hi kraut, big fan of your videos. In light of recent events in Afghanistan and Sri Lanka, I would love to see an update to the continuing story of the Indian subcontinent.
Funny how this translates into a good game of civilization. The abundance of resources on your spawnpoint won't determine or ensure a good outcome for your economy but your own policy, foreign interaction and other pressure points like religion and war with other nations will certainly have a big influence. Fascinating video to make think about the topic more!
Wow. It's weird how well it fits.
I did my university degree in geography, although I do IT work now, but it seems rather obvious enough that geography sets the stage for what is likely, but once humans enter the stage and start interacting with it, they can make decisions and do things that defy what the setting would tend to suggest they ought to do. So it seems pretty obvious to me it should be considered a blend of geography and culture/society. Trying to argue one or other other is absolute seems rather silly to me.
Thanks a lot for this dive in the mindset of geographic determinists, I never really thought about many ideas presented in the video, so thanks again !
Geography and Society seem like Talent and Training to me. Just because you have talent doesn't mean you'll succeed, but those who do well play to their strengths and minimize their weaknesses.
Well-said.
Kinda like Talent vs Skill
I just wanted to say thank you for all the great uploads!
Patreon Member here. Thank you for giving shout outs to small TH-camrs with such good content. You're doing the Lord's work. God Bless
13:06 You are forgetting that Tradewinds exist, which make east-west navigation much easier than north-south.
I think economic motivation shapes this kind of thing, the ocean was a barrier for Portugal and spain simply because they did not know what was to the other side. Once it was possible to use it for the spice trade though, it was suddenly viable. I bet if we discovered important resources in Antarctica we would also invent methods and tools to live there and expand, as long as resources, economy and trade is present in a place it becomes viable for human expansion :3
Thats like the Arctic trade routes. Rn for Canada and Russia their artic parts are useless and uninhabitable but should that melt it opens up a trade more valuable than the panama canal
We know that lots of oil are in Antarctica. We don't pump them because of environmental and political reasons, like how it's officially split by many nations.
That last part... just wait a few decades. And there are plenty of resource, but at the rate of global warming it would easier to just let the ice melt before serving and extracting.
.
.
.
(My conservation-heart just died a little because of out what my economist-brain said.
@@kingace6186 it's cool we'll all die with iphones in our hands
@@maYTeus Many people already have (ie: from police brutality) but, if live, that information is exposed regardless.
I love how you are finding a nice balance between short and long content.
As a highschool student taking AP Human Geo, your videos are a intricate interesting experience that I enjoy. Thanks for your hard work!
15:38 - first time I heard Kraut say the word "juicy" and the pronunciation in his accent made me chuckle
Great video as always
Might I suggest a greater emphasis on Tyre and the Phoenicians when discussing Lebanon? Much like the discussion on Nogales in your three part series on the border and why there is a decent chance my in-laws in Juarez will eventually become Americans without having to move, the fact the dominant culture evolved in a radically different environment and was grafted onto the one being discussed feels like its not being given the weight it deserves. It also feels off to be discussing it in relation to the modern age when - and I may be wrong on this - geographic determinism has always seemed to be more interested in starting points and initial responses to the environment when state formation begins, along with the constraints it continues to play on said state formation and ethnogenesis until the industrial age.
Likewise, it feels like climate isn't addressed as much as it should be here. The great empires in the Andes, Yucatan, and the Valley of Mexico developed where they did because the highlands were sufficiently temperate to require agriculture and then expanded down into the tropical regions where the agricultural controls break down. The Amazon was a haven for the peoples fleeing the Inca simply because the environment was so radically different as to make Inca control impossible.
Similarly, Cahokia and the Mississippians were a riverine trade confederation which was prevented from developing beyond an inland river thassalocracy by the smaller biomes creating more aggressive fauna which were impossible to properly domesticate. Something which the Andes civilization's existence in a larger biome had less issues with.
Lastly, the point above regarding agriculture was given far too short shrift. What kind of crops are being grown has a massive effect on the health of the people living in a society and how their society develops initially. Take Egypt for instance. The Egyptian reliance on the annual flooding of the Nile and extensive meant farmers often spent much of their lives maintaining their irrigation canals. We know from anthropological evidence this meant Egyptian farmers tended to have serious health issues which stunted their growth compared to more fertile empires. This can also be seen in China, where the wetter and more fertile rice growing south tended to be dominated by the dryer wheat growing north.
Regarding: 12:44
Not a sailor myself, but aren't the high seas greatly influenced by the trade winds? I wouldn't call the oceans free highways. Or are historic sail boats able to travel in any direction regardless of the wind?
I think geography is a good starting point for discussions about history, political science, etc. But it is the other factors (culture, technology, geopolitics, state institutions, etc.) that navigate around or with geography to determine development. Love this video and how it really makes its listeners think and understand big concepts with good examples.
This is my first time hearing about the ideas of geographical determinism and societal adaptabilism (neologism) so this is only a rough hypothesis:
It seems like geography is determining the potential and threats of the residing people. Scarcity of a resource thereby offers the potential necessity of efficient management of said resource but also bears the risk of conflict and infighting over it. It can also have effects on society by making certain cultural traits more attractive. Naturally there can be many possibilities and many risks, so there isn't a linear progress bar.
Domestic and foreign societal policy then determine how much of the potential and risk is realized via importance of the resource, ideologies, etc.
In this sense geography and society are just two axis of the same plane, there is a strong interaction but no causality directly applies.
Great educational and thought provoking video as ever. I'm so glad I found your channel Kraut!
Well bc you showed us in on scene the first book of Peter Zeihan i like to paraphrase him.
It goes something like this:
"Geography shapes society and technology morphs geography" - which is a good explanation for the Portugal part.
Also for LaPlata, he said something like "Geography decides how well a nation does, people (politicians) can follow their geographically determined path or make it all worse", in one book there is a whole chapter on how Argentina should be rich but isn't bc of politicians.
Just food for thought, i somehow see the second as a little copout by Peter tbh.
Geography is an important factor in the prosperity o the country - simply not only one. Its importance varies with time and technology(for example a lot of the Mississippi basin can't be used for agriculture without the plow - If I remember correctly that was invented in the 14th century[maybe earlier in China but I'm not exactly sure]). Oil without cars and modern technology don't matter that much etc.
Other factors like institutions, culture, religion or nearby civilisations(war) will determine how the geography will be used. In other words - geography gives some opportunities and some challenges to overcome . How civilisation will do it might result in two different nations as you pointed out. Geography is simply one of the many variables.
Everyone looks so cute at 2:55!
Thanks Kraut. I really appreciate your informative but also entertaining videos. These are topics bypassed by the American education system, and I personally need the information you provide.
You were completely wrong about Egypt btw. In that example the society formed around the geography
A Well reasoned and convincing appeal for a more balanced approach. The first step towards wisdom and good judgment is a feel for the limitations of the awesome tool that is logic. Thank you for sharing
amazing video as usual, keep up the great work brother!
I think the two factors should be considered as more ‘the egg and the egg’. Geography I think provides opportunities for nations, which can be impacted by preference and aspects of a society. Rather than determining, I think geography expands the options a nation has.
Not a very innovative or out there approach, I’m probably wrong about it anyway lol
Yes, i thought the same. It's a matter of how both aspect affects the population to develop, because no matter how good your lands are for growing, nothing will grow if you never use it.
Interesting take
Just a minor correction: Angkor is the name of the now-abandoned city where the famous temple Angkor Wat is located. The city was also known as Yasodharapura
is that anywhere near srilanka?
why tf they got so many similar names lol. Like anuradhapura and stuff.
Thats wild tho. Im therevada and I never realized that
@@honkhonk8009 It's in Cambodia which has a significant Buddhist population. It might be because of the Pali/Sanskrit connection through Buddhism.
The last two videos produced have been of great quality, well done
I believe geography plays a crucial part in the establishment of the primary characters of a civilisation and gives it a hand (good or bad) to play in the game. How that society develops it's structures is how well that hand will serve it. Thanks for the content fat pigeon! Love the channel and keep posting such high quality work!
If you have ever played a game in the Civilization series you will have an interesting perspective on this issue.
In many games your strategy changes as technology develops and you explore the geography.
For example you may start as a civilization that is mostly peaceful and religious nestled in the mountains. However as you explore you find a coastline and sailing becomes easier so you settle it. However another civilization wants your coast city and declares war on you for it. This pressures you to invest more into science and military to defend yourself. After the war you now have a strong military and access to the sea. A good play would be to start colonizing islands for access to luxury goods and trade routes.
Every Civ player is also familiar with restarting because they first spawned in an absolutely terrible location
One small correction: Rio de La Plata isnt fed by Amazon but mostly Parana and Uruguay rivers.
Super well made video, love this topic!
As I clicked on your video, I was suggested at the same time a video from Peiter Zeihan's channel, which I can only guess is the algorithm's way of winking at me.
As a sidenote, great video, as always!
The part where you talk about angor way is fascinating. I didn't know that Buddhism shaped southeast Asian architecture so drastically
Essentially, geography can hurt or help _a lot,_ but it isn't the only thing at play. It's up to the societies to either make use of, or squander, those advantages.
Great video! Very good vibes supporting good informational conversations
only time i watch start to finish is kraut's videos. glad i found you
I like the way you made the Taiwan countryball represent your thoughts while the Chinese countryball for the geographic determinists
Just realized the map in the thumbnail is Tamriel. 😆
Truly the best video you've released so far.
The Elder Scrolls map in the thumbnail was just the icing on the cake that is your videos.
Geographic determinism is the foundation
Society, livestock and resources are built upon the foundation, with various variations
The Andes example of "buckling" the trend is most likely because of the lack of horses and other large livestock in South America
Before the formation of unified polity in China, there were an unified cultural identity, namely the Zhou dynasty. Sure the Warring States period perfected statecraft, but the initial Zhou cultural unity were caused by geography
Ich habe alle Pommesbuden erobert.
Ich werde niemals aufhören.
@@Kraut_the_Parrot Pommes und Erbsen und Soße. Ich habe sie alle gegessen.
Sus
0:25 - I love the PC Master Race shade you're throwing here.
Great little video. Geography and environment are obviously important parts of the puzzle but it is not the only part. Environment gives you options and limitations, you can't be a naval power if you are land locked, you can't be a bread basket if you don't have fertile land and you can't be a petrostate if you don't have oil. There are countries that thrive despite their geography and places rich with resources and potential that are hold down in the gutter by external and internal socio-political forces.
always happy to see kraut do a sponsored video, if anyone deserves the money its him!
I think the pre-columbian history has to be considered separate from eurasia because they lacked the same common animals of eurasia and more specifically the beasts of burden which allowed people to traverse long distances over flat terrain. Lacking Horses means that it's much more difficult to consolidate power over relatively flat terrain.
Quality content as always! Cheers!
I really do love Kraut’s videos, getting a different perspective and learning bits of history you don’t often hear about but he needs to add sources to his description. Saying “but this simply isn’t true” requires more backing up than just his word alone, pulling from peer reviewed papers and such. I doubt he’s getting his videos peer reviewed themselves but I could be wrong in that assumption.
It feels pretty sketchy to argue that the Inca and Aztecs were "more prosperous" than the Spaniards.
Maybe they had more gold? Maybe they had better food security? MAYBE they even had longer lives??
Is that what you mean? Because in the type of civil and technological progress Jared Diamond talks about, they were thousands of years behind the rest of the world. Seems to me like there's an **overcorrection** for past eurocentrism being made sometimes.