You are right, but not as right as you might hope: the Meuse and Rhine were not relevant to French state formation - the reason that Gaul was united under "France" was the agricultural wealth of the Seine valley - it gave the local rulers the wealth, manpower and feudal warrior class necessary to extend control over their neighbors to the south and west.
True, but I doubt you would Blame Napoleon's Empire on the Seine Valley.
China has hundreds of valleys, each fertile, and dozens of powerful important rivers.
You're focusing on one facet of my post and blowing it out of proportion... I never said that the Yangtze was itself crucial to China's agricultural wealth in antiquity. I'm very willing to believe that this was mostly due to channels and smaller tributaries and rivers. Nor was it important in the early periods of Chinese history. In pre-Han times the Yangtze was indeed the border between China and the unconquered southern hinterland, and not especially valuable yet. However, this is not relevant to my argument that the entire region, the flat, well-watered expanse of agricultural land stretching from above the Yellow River alluvial plain as far south as the Yangtze, was a breadbasket for China. My original argument was that it was a breadbasket far exceeding in productivity Northwestern Europe, which it undoubtedly is.
I took one facet, because that was one thing I was really irritated by, and I meant to get to the rest of your post later. Now I'll just try to see if I can do that with just this post.
I have no real objection to that. My arguments have been based on the two rivers, the Yellow and the Yangze, were not the only reasons why China formed and that the agricultural production from those lands were minor to all of the
other channels and rivers. The Han and Huai rivers had food production that would dwarf the Yellow and Yangze. My arguments have been that the plain in northern China was not a homogenous plain. There were hills, mountain ranges, rivers, and such blocking the paths of empires that expand. Sili and Bing provinces were filled with mountain passes, poor land for food production, and were dominated by cavalry to the north and armies on defense in the south. Now both had enough farmlands to be self sufficient, but it's not exactly "booming". Liang was a vast swath of poor lands, dotted forests, and mountains on all sides. Dominated by cavalry. In Yi cavalry is worthless in the hundreds of mountain passes, some incredibly narrow, protecting everything. The moutains themselves isolate Yi, or most of modern day Sichuan, from the rest of China. The lands below the Yangze, and around the Yangze, were harsh swamps, thick jungles, disease ridden, and having mountains and hills there as well.
This is why I was arguing with you.You oversimplify China far too much.
Also, as an off-point, that map of the Shang polity clearly shows a focus on the Yellow River alluvial plain and its direct surroundings... How does that not support the argument that the Yellow River contributed directly to the birth of Chinese civilization?
I have no quarrel with how the Shang grew up around the Yellow River. My arguments have been that what created it did not automatically make it easier for it to take over everything in sight. That the lands directly from the Yellow River existed for trade, transport, and military purposes uniting an otherwise disorganized people. They still got most of their agriculture from lesser rivers and channels.