4 ms·

I have read a factor is populations that depend on yearly planning, were successful, so areas where winters will kill you was a requirement for this process. H

I have read a factor is populations that depend on yearly planning, were successful, so areas where winters will kill you was a requirement for this process. However I dont understand why civilisation thus started and grew in Egypt / Babylon and not in say Norway. If someone has any any ideas as to why specifically do let me know, I havent hard time to read the rest of the comments so please take this with a pinch of salt.

bluefirebrand 5y ago
Egypt required yearly planning based on the flooding of the nile I believe. Very hard to farm on floodplains if you aren't really planning ahead.
Gwypaas 5y ago
Taking the "yearly planing track". What about the yearly flooding of the Nile? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flooding_of_the_Nile https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flooding_of_the_Nile
anovikov 5y ago
Civilisation started there because they had, however limited by area, places with extremely good soil fertility that allowed agriculture to appear there first. Agriculture meant excess production, excess production meant possibility to have organised society by using that byproduct to feed priests/military/bosses, that in turn organised system of laws and their enforcement, and jumpstarted development. Quickly they realised that flood control on rivers greatly increases availability of fertile land further improving their returns, and that required centralised control - so they had both ability, and incentives to build centralised states.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
girafffe_i 5y ago
Right, the "fertile crescent" was a cornucopia of abundance. It provide everything to support a rich food chain and allowed energy to be redirected from hunter gathering towards agriculture and domestication. It's thought that the Sahara Desert is the result of human overgrazing and overfarming, which would create hardhsips which required problem-solving different than those in harsh climates with large seasonality. My US education is rife with hidden biases, I'm aware the British Empire fed it's engine through exploitation, but how did it start? The BE stole from India but that was because it had the muscle power already: my original thoughts were, if people lived in harsh climates and the food didn't jump into your basket, then there was more competition to survive in general, and those who could corral people to take over other resources were granted control of their own fiefdom. Rinse and repeat over royal generations and the bigger fish swallows the smaller, until they set sail around the world. This doesn't explain why Africa did not take a similar path in history.
zozbot234 5y ago
> However I dont understand why civilisation thus started and grew in Egypt / Babylon and not in say Norway. Civilization is mostly defined by the presence of urban-like settlements, and the ancient Norse were not urbanized for a long time. This is not to say that they lacked complex skills, however. But we have to judge that via complex circumstantial evidence, whereas the case for the Levant is much easier to make.
2000UltraDeluxe 5y ago
Civilization appeared in six (that we know of) different locations and not just in the Fertile Crescent. The early civilizations appeared in locations/times when there was an abundance of food, allowing people the time to specialize, creating the first professions. Tradesmen seems to have gathered around various religious sites, creating the first permanent settlements. The need to defend those settlements resulted in fortifications. Fortifications, and the safety they provided, attracted more people and the first cities slowly took form. There's a lot of nice things to say about Norway, but 9k years ago life there was harsh, and it was -- like the rest of the Arctic -- inhabited by hunter/gatherers, if at all.

bluefirebrand 5y ago

Egypt required yearly planning based on the flooding of the nile I believe. Very hard to farm on floodplains if you aren't really planning ahead.

Gwypaas 5y ago

Taking the "yearly planing track". What about the yearly flooding of the Nile? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flooding_of_the_Nile https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flooding_of_the_Nile

anovikov 5y ago

Civilisation started there because they had, however limited by area, places with extremely good soil fertility that allowed agriculture to appear there first. Agriculture meant excess production, excess production meant possibility to have organised society by using that byproduct to feed priests/military/bosses, that in turn organised system of laws and their enforcement, and jumpstarted development. Quickly they realised that flood control on rivers greatly increases availability of fertile land further improving their returns, and that required centralised control - so they had both ability, and incentives to build centralised states.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

girafffe_i 5y ago

Right, the "fertile crescent" was a cornucopia of abundance. It provide everything to support a rich food chain and allowed energy to be redirected from hunter gathering towards agriculture and domestication. It's thought that the Sahara Desert is the result of human overgrazing and overfarming, which would create hardhsips which required problem-solving different than those in harsh climates with large seasonality. My US education is rife with hidden biases, I'm aware the British Empire fed it's engine through exploitation, but how did it start? The BE stole from India but that was because it had the muscle power already: my original thoughts were, if people lived in harsh climates and the food didn't jump into your basket, then there was more competition to survive in general, and those who could corral people to take over other resources were granted control of their own fiefdom. Rinse and repeat over royal generations and the bigger fish swallows the smaller, until they set sail around the world. This doesn't explain why Africa did not take a similar path in history.

zozbot234 5y ago

> However I dont understand why civilisation thus started and grew in Egypt / Babylon and not in say Norway. Civilization is mostly defined by the presence of urban-like settlements, and the ancient Norse were not urbanized for a long time. This is not to say that they lacked complex skills, however. But we have to judge that via complex circumstantial evidence, whereas the case for the Levant is much easier to make.

2000UltraDeluxe 5y ago

Civilization appeared in six (that we know of) different locations and not just in the Fertile Crescent. The early civilizations appeared in locations/times when there was an abundance of food, allowing people the time to specialize, creating the first professions. Tradesmen seems to have gathered around various religious sites, creating the first permanent settlements. The need to defend those settlements resulted in fortifications. Fortifications, and the safety they provided, attracted more people and the first cities slowly took form. There's a lot of nice things to say about Norway, but 9k years ago life there was harsh, and it was -- like the rest of the Arctic -- inhabited by hunter/gatherers, if at all.