Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Alexis_J_M t1_j3x0lgr wrote

There's also a lot of rounding and smoothing from biomass -- soil erosion depositing deltas, for example.

353

riverrocks452 t1_j3xe5q8 wrote

That being said, vegetation is not necessary for the formation of a delta, and can in fact enhance shoreline rugosity in a delta by enhancing channel stability.

129

2011StlCards t1_j3yzz4f wrote

This is also part of a theory why Sub-Saharan Africa never developed into large, world-busting empires like you saw in Europe/near east/Asia.

Jagged coastlines make for great Deepwater ports, which are necessary for bulk trading and information exchange. Lots of groups in Africa generally stayed fractured, which is why there are so many cultures and languages

79

CorrectCoyote926 t1_j40drvb wrote

Can you say more about this?

14

Baxters_Keepy_Ups t1_j40l6vb wrote

There’s a lot written about this. There’s a book called “Prisoners of Geography” which was a bestseller and touches on some of this.

In order to have advanced ‘quickly’ as a country/culture/people - it’s helpful to have load bearing animals (horses, donkeys, camels, llamas etc), deep straight rivers, and fertile land. Access to the sea is also hugely useful.

Much of the African continent simply doesn’t have the tools that European or Asian powers had, so that has made harder what was easier elsewhere.

35

2011StlCards t1_j411p3z wrote

u/Baxters_keepy_ups already basically stated exactly what I was going to write.

Up until about the 16th to 17th century, Europe was not the world superpower that it would become.

The idea goes that Europe was able to advance in technology and power pretty quickly because of the interconnectiveness of the people on the continent

Large, navigable rivers. Arable land. Beasts of burden (i.e., horses, donkeys, camels). Deepwater ports (for trade). All of these aspects help to advance trade and, thus the connections between groups.

When large groups of people have connections like that, ideas and technology flow from one group to the next.

When you have that interplay between people (i.e. trade), you theoretically would advance quicker since someone in Portugal may have a ship design that is more efficient that the French may get to see and create for themselves or trade for.

It also helps that most of the large European powers had languages of either romance or Germanic origins, which makes talking to one another even easier.

This doesn't preclude conflict, of course, as we see countless European wars between neighbors throughout history. But between those conflicts, trade reigns Supreme.

18

MillennialsAre40 t1_j41883b wrote

I want an alternate history where pre-Columbian Americans domesticated bison and Moose, and there are Moose knights

14

BaldBear_13 t1_j41dc35 wrote

wars, or rather threat of them, can also contribute to development, as they encourage technological progress. E.g. gunpowder lead to cannons, and that lead to better metallurgy, which had all sorts of useful peaceful uses.

7

2011StlCards t1_j41fo6y wrote

Yep, nothing better for weapons technology than requiring better cannons to stop your enemy

And you need Good taxation structure to be able to obtain the wealth necessary to pay for those cannons

And good taxation structure leads to stronger, more centralized governments

5

BaldBear_13 t1_j41p68v wrote

also need active trade and industry to collect taxes from, which requires robust laws and property rights.

3

UnarmedSnail t1_j44xnwd wrote

There's a fair amount of randomness to it as well. You need all these important pieces, but you need them to come together in the right way, the right time, and in the right place. The ancient Greeks had all they needed to jumpstart the industrial revolution 3,000 years ago, but the pieces were locked away as religious displays and secret knowledge in mystery cults.

2

BaldBear_13 t1_j44xut2 wrote

do you have more detail on what the pieces were? A link is fine, or a name of a book or author.

2

UnarmedSnail t1_j4527gk wrote

They had chemical batteries that would be connected to statues of Zeus that would shock when touched. They had primitive steam engines that would spin up when boiling water was heated inside them. They had the archimedes screw. Complex machines for milling,stamping, grinding. If someone had known of all these pieces and thought to combine these technologies to actually do work then you have an industrial revolution.

3

UnarmedSnail t1_j459wed wrote

Europe was a boiling cauldron of death, plague, and blood since the fall of the Roman Empire.

Then it met China again.

Then Europe was a boiling cauldron of death, plague, blood and innovation as they used the cross pollination of ideas to find more efficient ways of death, plague, blood. WWII ended this...

for now.

Edit: Russia has unpaused the game.

2

UncagedBeast t1_j416bhq wrote

I wholeheartedly disagree with this. As an anthropologist, it is undeniable determinism is a long outdated idea in anthropology and fundamentally stems from racist ideas of objective evolutionary stages of « civilisation ». Further, many large compex and imperial structures and polities existed in Africa, at all periods of its history.

5

coob t1_j411h4q wrote

Why didn’t this happen in North America?

4

2011StlCards t1_j412mtv wrote

North American natives were effectively isolated from the rest of the world until the 15th century.

Europe, Africa, the Middle East, China, India, and southeast Asia had basically all been interconnected for millenia.

You had the Roman empire, the hellenestic kingdoms, Mongolian empire, trade routes of the Indian Ocean, trade routes like the Silk Road, etc... that had people, goods, and ideas transferring from one group to another for centuries.

That means technology, religion, science, and more from China can make it to Europe and have influence.

The Americas had some civilizations that were pretty damn advanced. The Inca somehow made a huge empire in the mountains with only humans and llamas. The Aztec basically had a capital that rivaled any city in europe at the time of its destruction.

If given time, these groups may have become more powerful, but the odds were against then when it came to trade and new ideas. There just weren't as many people involved there as in the Eurasian trade networks

12

hairybalI t1_j414wwo wrote

Additionally, there are no animals that could easily be domesticated as draught animals in North America. This was the biggest limitation on the development of agriculture there.

5

Buddahrific t1_j41dedu wrote

Not to mention the erasure of some of the progress they did have between exposure to European disease, conquest, and religion.

−1

UnarmedSnail t1_j4533uv wrote

They did not have animals in north America suitable for domestication to magnify their work potential. They did not have farming technology on an industrial scale, and they didn't have the social structure suitable for long term growth in most cultures. There were a few exceptions in prehistory but they did not survive to contact with Europeans. The Aztecs being the only empire that did exist then. There were a long string of prehistoric empires in the Americas but for the most part they were separated by time and distance from each other.

Edit: the Incas also had contact with Europeans.

1

the-channigan t1_j415m29 wrote

Thank you! I was coming here to ask the question that you answered about link to lack of deep water ports in Africa and Latin America.

2

wombatlegs t1_j418p58 wrote

Deepwater ports!? Civilisation began in the fertile crescent, where there were not a lot of glaciers, and spread largely by conquest. Ancient empires barely had seagoing vessels, let alone any use for deepwater ports, which is a very recent development.

More recently, these empires spread to the New World and Australia , while Africa remained the "Dark Continent". The reasons Arabs and Europeans failed to make headway into sub-Saharan Africa are documented in the history books. On the science side, one big breakthrough was anti-malarial drugs.

1

2011StlCards t1_j41fgx8 wrote

I never said civilizations required deepwater ports to begin. I am stating that larger empires or interconnected civilizations benefit from them.

Obviously, no early civ started by trading across the seas and oceans. Rivers, especially navigable ones, were key to the early governments that we see in Mesopotamia, Egypt, indus river valley, etc...

5