Are their regions in the world that are detained to be nations.

The more I try to think of which countries have borders which could be imagined as so likely that they could be called destined to be, the more I disbelieve that any are. Certain areas have been political foci, but the political and cultural setups change so much that they're not really constant enough to be imagined as obvious natural states. Egypt has obvious centres on the east coast and along the Nile valley, and has a good western border with the desert, but different states based off of Egypt have controlled anything from half of north Africa, to north and south Sudan, to the majority of the Levant.

But this example actually tends to prove the point. The OP was talking about regions that are destined to be "nations," that is to have some degree of cultural unity that makes people in those regions distinct from people in other regions. It doesn't ask for those regions always gelling back into an identically-shaped country, or even being independent countries, particularly as most countries actually include various "imperial" areas that aren't part of the "nation" those countries are built on (so far as they are built on nations).

In that respect, Egypt is probably one of the very few areas, if not the only area, that is destined to be a nation, given that the Nile River is isolated from external influences and fertile enough to support a highly populated and therefore complex society. The fact that the Egyptian nation, at different times, controlled imperial areas in different areas shouldn't obscure the fact that the Nile core experienced a remarkable tendency to unite into a culturally distinct region even after major cultural changes (such as the introduction of Christianity and Islam) and long periods of imperial rule from abroad. Even other large river valleys that were other cradles of civilization didn't tend towards Egypt's tendency towards cultural unity; Mesopotamia has been a fiercely diverse patchwork of cultures since deep antiquity and the Indus-Sarasvati group has shown no exceptional degree of unity since the disintegration of the Harappans. Only the Chinese civilization that grew out of the early Yellow River valley civilization is anything like as successful at holding itself together, and that may have as much to do with the success of its cultural-imperial project as anything in the geography.
 
I'm unsure how that's germane to my rhetorical point about the Cold War, but sure.

It wasn't contradiction, just a riff on the most common pre-1900 equivalent to those statements: America (okay, the North) was destined to win the ACW.
 
I think California (the U.S. State, not Alta and Baja combined) is one of the more perfect places to house an independent nation.

Isolated (in a good way), surrounded by mountains, deserts, and more mountains, and more deserts, it's difficult for an army to get in.

Fertile, the Central and Imperial Valley offer some of the best farmlands on the continent, with some irrigation you can have a huge surplus of fruit and grain and livestock. Even the hilly coasts could easily be turned into grazing land, which much of it is today.

Defensible. The land on the coast is rugged and the Sierra Nevada are a natural border, an invading army Would be harassed by dense population and rugged terrain.

An amazing harbor. I may be San Franciscan, but let's be honest, is there a more perfect natural harbor than San Francisco Bay? I'm sure there is, but not on on the Pacific! San Francisco, which is fed by rivers coming from hundreds of miles allowing for easy transport, allows for trade dominance in the Northern Pacific.


Honestly, if you're looking for a rich, small nation, go Cali.


West Coast is Best Coast.

Hmmmmm, Cali is in the process of going broke dry in a year.
 
Top