Best place ever to maintain a civilization?

Perhaps this is ASB, but ok.

We all know the importance of geography on the history and progress of a nation, If you could choose a place (regardless of size, as long as it makes sense) to permanently settle a civilization, where would it be? You might simply think of one of the Cradles of Civilization, but I don't think places like Mesopotamia are particularly safe from invaders and Egypt might not be so great on the long run.

Discount the real life inhabitants of this region and even if everything of butterflied away, consider some "obvious" foreign problems that could come, like steppe nomads and etc.
 
A large island or peninsula, for defensive purposes, right next to a large cluster of other civilizations, for trade and communication by sea.

Italy is a perfect example.
 
A large island or peninsula, for defensive purposes, right next to a large cluster of other civilizations, for trade and communication by sea.

Italy is a perfect example.
Italy has never been very well positioned for defense. From Hannibal to the Lombards and Huns through to Napoleon and the Allied invasion in 1944.
 
Japan, a island with safe marine conection, but not so safr to make periodical invasions likely, insede The eurasian agricultural and illness zone, whith enough mineral wealth to not be dependent of comercial rutes, and even kickstar a early industrialization, there is a reason de know about The japanese empire since The 200 bc aprox
 
An island is the best place for a civilization to last. Even places with good natural defences like India or Italy have been invaded many times because the presence of civilization to loot has attracted invaders.
 

Deleted member 97083

Even islands aren't safe on their own.

Thus, I propose the formation of the Anglo-Soviet-Tibetan-Afghan Union, combining all the hardest-to-invade places in the Old World.

Lose Britain? Relocate to Scandinavia. Lose Russia? Relocate to Central Asia. Lose Tibet? Relocate to Russia. Got people you don't like? Send them to Siberia.

Station your fleet and most of your air bases in southeastern England, attaining air superiority over Europe and naval superiority in the English Channel. Use the vast defense in depth of Russia to bog down any offensive in the muddy rasputitsa. Not much needs to be said about the defensive capabilities of the mountainous Afghanistan or Caucusus Mountains.

Eastern Siberia? Well, it'll never be populated enough to be launch a proper invasion. And Mongolia? Come on, they could not conquer anything.

It's a flawless strategy.

AngloSovietTibetanAfghanUnion.png
 
Maybe somewhere in Papua, like the Baliem valley? It's got the ocean separating it from invaders, and anyone who gets across the ocean still has to deal with jungle and mountain terrains. An agricultural population in Papua would probably have the numbers to deal with any invading tribes, especially since horses won't really be an issue.
 
The Central Valley of California. Massive agricultural productivity, isolated by mountains and deserts from potential invaders in all directions except north. It's unlikely that any crop package that thrives in the Valley will thrive in in the Pacific Northwest, meaning there likely won't be hordes of invaders even in that direction. Even seaborne invasion would be very difficult given that there aren't favorable places for littoral civilization for for a thousand miles (the Salish Sea is the only candidate) and San Francisco Bay wasn't discovered for a hundred years after Europeans began sailing by due to fog. Civilization will more likely be clustered on the east side of the Valley away from the sea.

If there had been some easy native domesticates in California we could have seen a really weird civilization arise there, with only the slightest trickle of influence from Mesoamerica.
 
Even islands aren't safe on their own.

Thus, I propose the formation of the Anglo-Soviet-Tibetan-Afghan Union, combining all the hardest-to-invade places in the Old World.

Lose Britain? Relocate to Scandinavia. Lose Russia? Relocate to Central Asia. Lose Tibet? Relocate to Russia. Got people you don't like? Send them to Siberia.

Station your fleet and most of your air bases in southeastern England, attaining air superiority over Europe and naval superiority in the English Channel. Use the vast defense in depth of Russia to bog down any offensive in the muddy rasputitsa. Not much needs to be said about the defensive capabilities of the mountainous Afghanistan or Caucusus Mountains.

Eastern Siberia? Well, it'll never be populated enough to be launch a proper invasion. And Mongolia? Come on, they could not conquer anything.

It's a flawless strategy.

View attachment 356871
Maybe we could rename Britain as "Airstrip One"?
 

Pellaeon

Banned
I'd say the Himalayan peaks and the caves inside the mountains. As far south as the valleys of Nepal and north into the Tibetan plateau.

It's the best defensible terrain and has a stable if uncomfortable climate(though you get acclimated to it).

I'd say it's a pretty good place to have a civilization.
 
Well, no place is invasion proof, so while a place in the Mediterranean puts you against several pirates and naval powers, it also gives you a lot of opportunities for trade and expansion.

Well, the probability of an actual civilization being formed in a place is not really the focus of my question, but would it be so crazy if a "thalassocracy" power arised in Britain and colonized/influenced the northern west Europe, similarly to Phoenicia or Greece?

The Central Valley of California. Massive agricultural productivity, isolated by mountains and deserts from potential invaders in all directions except north.

I have always wondered why no great civilization arose there. Did humans got too late there? It seems unlikely compared to places like the Andes.
 
Perhaps this is ASB, but ok.

We all know the importance of geography on the history and progress of a nation, If you could choose a place (regardless of size, as long as it makes sense) to permanently settle a civilization, where would it be? You might simply think of one of the Cradles of Civilization, but I don't think places like Mesopotamia are particularly safe from invaders and Egypt might not be so great on the long run.

Discount the real life inhabitants of this region and even if everything of butterflied away, consider some "obvious" foreign problems that could come, like steppe nomads and etc.

I would take a place with major rivers, to have irrigation and transport, and fertile soils. Mineral wealth is an interesting bonus, or at least the possibility to acquire minerals from a neighbouring civilization.

Would the Rio de la Plata fulfull such conditions.

The Central Valley of California. Massive agricultural productivity, isolated by mountains and deserts from potential invaders in all directions except north. It's unlikely that any crop package that thrives in the Valley will thrive in in the Pacific Northwest, meaning there likely won't be hordes of invaders even in that direction. Even seaborne invasion would be very difficult given that there aren't favorable places for littoral civilization for for a thousand miles (the Salish Sea is the only candidate) and San Francisco Bay wasn't discovered for a hundred years after Europeans began sailing by due to fog. Civilization will more likely be clustered on the east side of the Valley away from the sea.

If there had been some easy native domesticates in California we could have seen a really weird civilization arise there, with only the slightest trickle of influence from Mesoamerica.

Which crops and animals might be available there?
 
But it did happen, in the form of the United States.

I suppose the US could have obtained Ontario too, but such a USA would only be moderately more powerful than the OTL USA.

Exactly!

What would be the minimum definition of the Great Lakes region that would be a major world power? You might need the surrounding areas, it could be simply impossible to develop without the Mississippi or Appalachians secure. Alternately (alternatively), could there be some contentious but 'sticky' borders through the region? A Civil War equivalent fought between the industrialized parts of North America would be quite different.
 

Deleted member 97083

Exactly!

What would be the minimum definition of the Great Lakes region that would be a major world power? You might need the surrounding areas, it could be simply impossible to develop without the Mississippi or Appalachians secure. Alternately (alternatively), could there be some contentious but 'sticky' borders through the region? A Civil War equivalent fought between the industrialized parts of North America would be quite different.
I would say a Great Lakes power would eventually dominate the rest of what is the OTL United States due to economic, demographic, and logistical factors. However, if somehow this was limited, I would suggest two different minimums.

One has secured the US South, providing a coherent Eastern United States and a path to Atlantic expansion. The "Eastern Minimum". This power has secured the industrial centers of the Great Lakes as well as a source of textiles in the South and Mississippi as an early trade network before railroads. It would likely make the "Western United States" into a series of client states, though.

greatlakes1.PNG


The other has the rough borders of the Union in the American Civil war, providing a coherent Northern United States and a path to Pacific expansion. The "Northern Minimum". This power has secured the industrial centers of the Great Lakes as well as a path to foreign influence and colonial expansion across the Pacific. It would likely make the "CSA" into a series of client states, though.

greatlakes2.PNG
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Top