Good game but the Grind is Simply too much if you don't have premium. I personally abandoned the game since October 2020 and prefer Squad and GHPC for tank combat and DCS world for Air combat. What I can recommend is to Strictly play realistic and have a back up Air Realistic Battle crew with a highly armed plane (Any nation that has P47) to farm money. I also recommend Germany as your Nation since they have access to both US and RU equipment.
@@TheSpecialJ11 yea, at least when we are the sick man of Europe we still have a great living standard and great affordable food. If UK becomes the sick man of Europe now it will be a lot tougher for them.
@@TheSpecialJ11 Laughs in American. (I mean, technically we just blend all the best food from other societies into a big buffet, so does it count? Most food was already invented by the time we got here.) (And let's face it, most people's favorite American food is Italian anyway. 😄)
Geographic determinism is definitely one of the more alluring theories out there. It offers a number of very convincing case studies which are hard to argue against. But as you point out, it too has its limits and areas where it fails - like all theories in International Relations & state building. States and human societies are among the most complex structures we have ever created. And because of this complexity, it's very useful to have these theories as they reduce complexity and can point to the most important aspects of a case study. What I don’t understand however is that so many people who are interested in state building and geopolitics adhere/identify with one particular theory as if it can explain everything. Instead of using theories as tools to understand our world better, many seem to use it as a base for an almost tribal identity. People who always say “I’m a geographic determinist” or “I’m a offensive realist” or anything else seem to be missing the point: These theories are not there for you to choose a side like a club in football, but as tools to critically examine complex issues. And just like with tools, there is no “single super-tool” that can be used to do everything. A hammer works great in certain situations, not so great in others. The same goes for theories like geographic determinism. Anyways, great analysis!
I think it's a very attractive theory from a political perspective, because it doesn't apportion blame. Societies are rich and poor for reasons ultimately beyond their control. Even if Africa was made poorer by European colonialism, geographic determinism says that Europe and Africa were put in those positions of strength and weakness, so that one could colonise the other so effectively, through their geography (chicken and egg). It doesn't accuse African civilisations of being too disorganised and inept to keep pace with European technology and mount an effective defence against colonisation, nor does it accuse European civilisations of being exceptionally immoral and bloodthirsty to take over most of a continent. Both were acting rationally given their geographic starting hands.
I strongly believe in both "geographic determinism" & "offensive realism". But to view everything in geopolitics through these lenses is a gross misrepresentation of the nuanced complex realities of historical and current events. Also, both of these theories have their positives and negatives; their soundnesses and shortcomings.
@@Croz89 africa in particular was kinda screwed when it came to geography. they had so many real bad diseases that really reduced how urban the peoples could be. even inn disorganized tribal societies people still died of those diseases often. trying to build any state or urbanization in those conditions is no easy task. sure exceptions exist, the congo for instance is a great example, but it can't be denied those factors put a severe stress on trying to urbanize. hell the reason african wasn't really colonized until after the 1850s was europeans died so insanely fast that they stayed out until anti-biotics were invented. plus: the sarahra. its not that technologies spread easier from east to west, its that the sarahra is a gigantic barriar that stops most communication between regions and societies. it wasn't until the Portuguese started sailing the coast that communication even began
@@sovietunion7643 The geographical issues I hear most about are lack of navigable waterways, lots of natural barriers partitioning the continent up into chunks and the Sahara cutting most of the continent off from the rest of the world. This meant in a lot of places in the interior trade was difficult so most civilisations lived in relative isolation from one another, mainly as small tribes. Larger kingdoms did exist of course, especially near the coast, but their trade was limited to caravans and ships that were able to come from one of the few trade routes available by land or sea. Thus, the theory goes, huge parts of the continent technologically stagnated, and even the more developed kingdoms were slower to advance than European or Asian civilisations because they didn't have the abundance of trade connections many of those civilisations had, through navigable waterways, land routes, and coastlines, from both nearby civilisations and ones on the other side of Eurasia via the silk road.
@@tj-co9go and successfully fked up the environment, creating sinking buildings, ridiculous drought in rainy area, pollution, mass extinction of wildlife etc.
I like to think of geography almost like a starting deck for society. It provides the initial conditions and clearly has a large role to play in how civilizations develop but ultimately it is always how the civilization itself uses that “starting deck” of available resources that determines how it ultimately develops
That's a very good way of looking at it. It gives some countries a starting advantage but in the modern day, it's very much possible for two countries with similar geographies such as North Korea and South Korea to end up in different places.
Agreed. Geography is a springboard, not an absolute. Once a culture has formed then geography becomes more of a "nice thing to have" rather than an absolute.
@Ricky Smith basically the geography opens up many paths that can be travelled all with benefits and problems while society is the one that moves down one of the paths and tries to keep the problems at bay.
@@darthutah6649 thats the point, geography will only get you so far. Its how poeple use it and how strong the societies it made to effectively use it will be a determining factor.
pretty much. isolation comes into play as well. europe and asia are a massive long land mass. thats why europe got horses. the acceptable climate for horses in mongolia stretched from pacific to Atlantic. in africa and america the climate for name a thing is just that area. south africa and slightly less south africa are VERY different. but tldr geographic determinism IS important. its just not the only factor.
As a Swiss person I can confirm that our mountains are holding us hostage - we want to go to the local Migros, nope, mountain. We want to visit a friend down the road? What road, only mountain, also you're Swiss you don't have friends only mitarbeiter. Want to protect yourself from a foreign invasion? That's possible, but in return it'll take 3 hours to go from central Switzerland to the French side even though we have an incredible train network and it's relatively short as the crow flies, because mountains.
Depends on where you you live. In the central plateau (where most swiss live) its not a big deal at all. It becomes more of a problem down south. From Zurich to Geneva I bearly have any longer then I would to Stuttgart.
Those mountains HAVE protected you from foreign invasions, many times. I'm sure they have their down-sides, too. But most nations would kill for geography that makes a policy like National Redoubt even POSSIBLE. Switzerland is like an island of stability, amid the invasions, occupations, and changing borders that have transformed the rest of Europe around Switzerland, for the last 3 or 4 centuries- Which is 99% because of those mountains.
I love that the map used in the thumbnail and throughout the video is just a map of Tamriel. There’s a strong geographic determinist case to be made for the success of the Dark Elves and Argonians (volcanic mountain ranges and swamps) in protecting their independence from the Cyrodiilic Empire.
Yes; there's also the inhospitable desert terrain of Hammerfell allowing the Redguards to defend themselves, but also limiting their expansion to the north(mountains of High Rock) and east(mountains of Cyrodiil). Likewise, there's Orsinium that just gets obliterated over and over again due to its piss-poor geography.
@@niIIer1 This might sound batshit insane, but in a way, geographic determinism helped create ALMSIVI - Red Mountain contained the Heart of Lorkhan, which in turn allowed ALMSIVI to achieve apotheosis. Without Red Mountain - a geographic location - there would be no ALMSIVI or modern Dunmeri culture.
The Tribunal is what kept Cyrodiilic empires at bay, not geography. The Kamal Akaviri launched a successful invasion on Morrowind until the ALMSIVI interfered and drowned them all. The province was incorporated only when the Tribunal could no longer spend power to protect their borders, and, when facing Numidium, decided to negotiate their surrender and incorporation to the empire with Tiber Septim. And before the Tribunal, Nords, Nedes, Dwemer all made successful invasions of Morrowind over and over, and after the Tribunal, the Argonians managed to conquer half the province as well.
@@FernandoGomez-hg4rn The Dwemer were living in Morrowind before the Chimer/Dunmer even arrived in the province, so that wouldn't necessarily be fair. The Nords did conquer the province for a short amount of time, but it was only because no one in the province was able to consolidate power - they were fighting against disparate city states and tribal communities, who kicked the Nords out after the Dunmer and Dwemer consolidated into one power bloc. The Argonians invaded the province at their weakest point - most of Morrowind's infrastructure to the north was devastated, Vivec City was destroyed, the Oblivion Crisis severely damaged the northern houses, and a political crisis destroyed Great House Hlaalu. Even then, the bruised and battered armies of House Redoran managed to beat back the Argonians, who would've likely had assistance from the Hist. There would only be one feasible way to achieve such a counterattack, and that is through taking advantage of Morrowind's treacherous terrain.
As a Cambodian, it is a delight to see a depth analysis of our history. I see people wrote about Mogolians, Thais, Vietnamese, Javanese, but never Khmer. What was largely forgotten is that Khmer Empire used to one of the greatest empire in Southeast Asia history due to our geographical standing, but what was supposed to be our greatest natural strength has became our biggest weakness too. Our ancestors were so focused on agriculture that they have neglect to build more on sea trade hence the rapid decline of Angkorians and the rise of many Southeast Asia archipelago empires. If you closely look, you can see the patern that the abandonment of Angkor was an effort to move the capital closer to trade routes (South) hence Phnom Penh, which is the capital now and the forefront of where Upper and Lower Mekong river meet (which they can move goods through water toward the sea) and closer to Kampong Saom, Sihanoukville (the only deep water port we currently have). Thank you, Kraut for share an interesting analysis on our history.
Hello! Peru, where the Incas were situated and Mexico, where the Mexica/Aztecs were situated are both lands of great fertility and agricultural potential. Since their proximity to the equator, these mountainous regions are actually the most appropriate lands for agriculture as they have constantly mild temperatures and a lot of rainfall. The lowlands surrounding them are actually worst in this regard. The Pacific lowlands of Peru are deserts and the Amazonian lowlands are jungles, which are infertile. In Mexico it's more varied, bit then again, Mexico has multiple dominant cultures. Thus, in this case also, I think that geographic determinism holds water. -- Not that I'm in favour or against it - I'm simply uneducated on the matter.
As a geography student, I really liked that you criticised geographic determinism, as it's often kind of a given because of the bubble we're in. I also liked that you critices Jared Diamond's work, as this too, is seen as logical as some of the lessons we've had about it are largely based on his ideas.
Interesting topic, and it always sparks debate. I think there is a distinction between what could be called 'strong' geographic determinism, and 'weak' geographic determinism. I myself fall into the weak determinism camp. The primary difference is that the weak variant basically says "If you don't have a coast line, you will not become a seafaring culture, if you live in a dessert, you are never going to be known for your crop exports, if you live in plains or steppes, you will not be known for your timber, etc". Geography determines the pieces a culture has to play with and establishes certain limits under given technological conditions. But the culture still plays a MASSIVE role in determining how those pieces, those geographical assets, get used. Great video, I enjoyed it!
Well, even that "soft determinism" has lots of problems of you look at it closely. EG a big part of our worlds crops come from areas way to dry to farm, but with huge irrigation systems.
@@CG-eh6oe This is true to a point, but none of those countries are at the top in world production. There is always going to be comparative advantage. And irrigation is a good example of what I said about "under given technological conditions". They were only able to produce a sizable amount of crops after altering their environment. That said, some of the earliest civilizations arose in areas where some degree of cooperation was required, and these were typically areas which were not ideal but not terrible either. Sumer in Mesopotamia is a good example of this, since the construction and maintenance of irrigation canals requiring an organized workforce were a key part of their agriculture.
I honestly never thought the Inca would be relevant to channel topics that commonly come up. But I'm thrilled to see some analysis into their civilization, and hope to see them sneak their way into more videos in the future
Im native Khmer, and I have never heard anyone connect the abandonment of Angkor with the change in religion. So thankful that you talk about our civilization. Love your content! Edit: highly recommend you come visit siem reap. Btw is that Tamriel at 11:30 👀
To further your defense. Jared Diamonds reference to the greater domesticated animal abundance wasn't to explain technological or societal development, it was to explain the natural resistance to disease that allowed the Europeans to conquer the America's.
@@benjaminpaull247 to further further the defence. The reason why Native American societies were bound to fare badly in relation to European invaders was their lack of immunity against such diseases, especially smallpox, leading to catastrophic death rates
@@catsnads01 To further further further the defense, it also relates to use of animals for transport and utility. Horses weren't in the Americas until the Europeans arrived to facilitate fast transport of people and goods and there weren't domesticatable livestock to stabilise food supply and assist with agriculture.
@@TheSpearkanto further further further further the defense, the greater relative prosperity of the Native South Americans compared to the South American societies post-colonization doesn't really count for much when those more prosperous societies were so easily conquered. Diamond uses geography to explain how Europeans came to be the dominant military power in the world, thus allowing them to conquer others and enrich themselves. I don't think he ever argues that geography made Europeans more prosperous than Native South Americans, just more powerful. Also, Diamond did not make the point about domesticated livestock only regarding the fertile crescent, but actually all of Afro-Eurasia. This is where the point about domesticated plants and animals more easily spreading East to West vs North to South comes in. I'm really not sure what Kraut was trying to say when he claimed Diamond was wrong about it. It's pretty obvious that climates vary as you travel North to South and domesticated plants only grow in certain climates.
The way I see it is that geography determines the floor and ceiling, and which part of that you fall in depends on the society. It is undoubtedly true that China has a much higher ceiling compared to Siberia (albeit these are two extreme examples). The problem is that when you try to simplify something as complex as modern society to one of hundreds of aspects, who also have influence on each other. It has similarities to the nature vs nurture argument, but geography vs society is even more complex, and can't be boiled down to one thing, but we can recognize that they both provide baselines. There's only so much you can do with a limited amount of resources, no matter how skilled you are with them
I’m a big fan of reading/listening to geographical determinists (like Peter Zeihan for example), yet I still listen to Kraut when he poses more social/cultural reasons for why nations are the way they are. Why? Because they are both right. Countries evolve based on many factors and if you only pay attention to one, you will miss the bigger picture. At the end of the day, you need both the Chicken and the Egg. Great video.
Reminds me when the science community a century ago formed two groups of which agues and debated if light is a particle or a wave. In the end, both are correct.
"Mountains are great barriers" Hannibal: I am going to pretend I didn't hear that. Simon Bolivar: Nobody told me that. Napoleon: Show them the painting. Jose De San Martine: Mountains are a suggestion.
Mountains ARE great barriers in a sense that you can occasionally sneak a push through these mountains if you determined enough and don't mind much about attrition, but you can't sustain this push if thought these mountains is the only way to supply this push. Hannibal went through mountains, but he lost almost all his elephants, deliberately didn't carry heavy equipment (that barred him from sieging any decently fortified roman town, including Rome itself) and, as Rome dominated the sea at the time, had to rely mostly on his local allies for supplies and reinforcement (and as the number of local allies becomes smaller his position becomes more and more untanable) Napoleon went through the alps and get away with this only because he managed to make Piedmont fold quickly and managed to exploit Austrian ineptitude as his forces were starving quicker then initial garrison of Mantua. Bolivar and San Martine had plenty of support and supply across the mountains for not to worry about keeping their lines of communications with Venezuela and Argentina open.
You kinda proved his point. Part of the reason all those people are considered among the greatest military minds in history is because they overcame the massive geographic barrier mountains present.
The South America example was something I just thought about a few days ago. I noticed similarities between Argentina and the US and investigated further. That area was prosperous until 100 year ago.
@@lucasm7781 Reality of South America. Like someone commented here about italy, South America is a good example of how society can wreck geography benefits.
south america and south europe have earily similar paths , shows you wich part of europe colonized where. Society and history people, society and history.
Kraut, you're not being quite fair to Diamond's theory about EW diffusion being faster than NS diffusion. What Diamond actually said is that *crop plants* have a tough time diffusing north south because adopting to changes in the way day length varies over the year is hard. This is true and not faldified by observations about ocenic travel or domesticated animals.
No, he does say technology has a hard time moving North to South, but he also says that the EW/NS theory and most of his theories lost their relevance in the age of the discovery.
This is easily one of your most foundational videos you've put out; alongside India/China's Society-or-State essay this includes some of the most basal information and concepts you can find on history and social science. Combine the two and you have seventy perfect minutes to introduce someone to not just the rest of your work but the study of history in total. Perfect work.
I love this channel and the conversations that it sparks. The conversation between geographical determinism and “cultural determinism” is particularly important, but only due to the strong lenses through which most “academics” view history. As an analogy to the physical world, if I have a microscope, I can see a cell, but I cannot see the stars. Conversely, if I have a telescope, I can see the stars, but I cannot see a cell. Similarly, viewing history through one lens only limits what can be comprehended and the horizon over which history can be understood. Once these limitations are acknowledged, history can be viewed through many lenses and seen as a rich tapestry of influences, each contributing part of the puzzle. That being said, geographical determinists have a strong initial postulate: geography creates benefits and limitations with which societies must directly contend. In other words, societies are incentivized to find solutions to or exploit their geographic circumstances. Thus, society structures itself in a way that optimally addresses these geographic circumstances, leading to incredible headstarts or adopting systems of governance that trade future prosperity for current safety and stability. However, as Kraut points out, there are a myriad of examples where beneficial geography, which should have led to prosperity for its inhabitants, ended with comparative poverty, or limiting geography, which should have led to poverty, ended with comparative prosperity. Kraut has argued, echoing the New Institutionalists, that institutions - he often refers to it as a culture to be more easily digestible - are the real determinants of economic and political prosperity. There are a plethora of examples Kraut could cite here from Acemoglu, North, Ostrum, DeSoto Weingast … etc. (I am sure are a ton more in the non-economic literature). Geographical determinists argue that culture is molded by the environment while “cultural determinists” argues that any environment is surmountable with the right culture. Thus the chicken and egg argument mentioned by Kraut. However, maybe this is misleading. Maybe both geography and culture affect the structure of society exactly in the way these two schools of thought believe they do. If we assume culture changes to address environmental challenges, then environmental challenges are overcome by cultural changes, which in its broadest sense, both sides are likely to agree. Then why are they at odds with each other, you might ask. Consider that geography does not easily change (there are arguments over what constitutes geography, which I will not sweep under the rug), but culture can be in many different geographical circumstances. Conversely, culture does change but is sticky or has momentum. The momentum of culture means that a culture developed to face one particular geographic challenge could exist in a geographical circumstance where that challenge no longer exists. Thus, a culture that held an empire together without modern communication technology could exist in a small nation-state without an empire. As such, the cultural benefits of holding the empire together, whether it is from more specialization or access to strategic resources, could outweigh the detriments of creating a culture capable of holding the empire together, for example, a large centralized bureaucracy that pays off political factions with bureaucratic careers. Without the empire, the small nation-state’s economy collapses under the weight of an unwieldy centralized bureaucracy. Yes, there is a better way for the small nation-state to operate, but that is not the culture they inherited. The culture will ultimately change, whether it comes from internal reform or external pressures, but the society with the culture will have to pass through a process of poverty until the conditions are right for a change. This may indeed be a long time if international institutions are used to “prop up” the cultures, functionally creating the state equivalent of a zombie corporation. The transfer of culture to different geographies helps explain the phenomenon that Kruat cites in his video. Similarly, culture could move from geography to geography, picking up cultural characteristics that overcome each new geographic challenge. If this is the case, it is conceivable that a lucky culture could randomly move through a series of challenges that constructs a truly resilient culture, capable of overcoming any new challenge. This resilient culture would dominate all other cultures with which they come in contact. I’m going to stop here and note that this is not a moral argument nor am I attempting to say that any one culture is superior to another. I am just following the logic to the extreme. So, both geographic determinist and “cultural determinist” are right, but they both fail to understand the timeframe and inertial elements in history. That is why I find this conversation more a function of academic ego than of science. However, the geographic determinist is more correct further back in time while the cultural determinist is more correct as we approach modern times. I’ll leave this one to you to figure out … since you got this far. I think a decade or two from now, we will look back at this conversation and view it as we look back on nature vs. nurture now. It takes both concepts to make sense of the diversity of outcomes. Instead of arguing about who is right, we should be discussing where the two schools of thought connect. Keep up the great work Kraut. You inspired me to write a ridiculously long comment.
A comment I enjoyed reading; hear hear to schools of thought being tools to use in conjunction to understand a given subject from more angles rather than being avenues for intellectual tribalism
I think a more nuanced view is that geography is a major (maybe the most major) factor that influences a society. But geography has different effects on different society. In a non seafaring society the ocean is a major blockade for them, but in an ocean going society, it is a major benefit. The geography effects them differently but it still has a major effect on them.
Another great example of the limits of geographic determinism would be Botswana. Botswana is landlocked and almost entirely desert with a very small population with its main export being diamonds. By all accounts, Botswana should be an impoverished nation with natural resources going into the pockets of its elite like Sierra Leone. However due to the efforts of its early leaders who were against corruption and spent its resources amongst everyone on infrastructure and the state, Botswana is one of the wealthiest, safest, and most stable nations in Africa despite its geography.
As a Vietnamese I say the Annamite Range is what keeping us prison in the most eastern part of South East Asia. When the sea level rise most of our coastal regions and flat regions will be the first to submerged by the ocean. It's a curse, we can't "West ward", we can't even seek refuge in the ranges because those mountains is constantly flooded.
That's a stupid statement there. Look at the dutch, they can build a whole country that is constantly getting flooded. We even have more resources than they do. So please stop whining about geography - Vietnam is blessed with good geography, the communists are just too corrupt to do anything.
@@rutvikrs They did so by bouncing through Cambodia, Malaysia, Burma and the Andaman Islands. After that the Munda tribes spread throughout all of eastern india, from Bangladesh up to Awadh in Uttar Pradesh, as well as Malwa and Gondwana in Madhya Pradesh and Maharastra.
You guys need buildings elevated above the ground and construct seawalls along your coast. Eventually, you'll have to push west into Laos and Cambodia. Best of luck to Vietnam, fastest growing economy in the world and an economic miracle. Y'all are about to hit the 100m population milestone.
Well, if we follow the geographic determinist playbook, I can think of another society with growing population pressures, a shortage of land, fenced into a narrow strip of coastline by mountains. It's time for Vietnam to build ships and go a-Viking!
I'd say that ultimately it's society. But society is usually shaped by the geography, like how parents shape their children. But societies, like children, are their own beasts. Once they're "done", their decisions are the things that matter the most.
@@Kraut_the_Parrot But how? China is in a very good position. Russia/the Soviet Union has not had any reason to attack them, Korea is too small for that, SEA countries too and India is limited by the Himalayas. Not only that but their population is massive. For me it looks like a natural superpower not a society doomed to collapse.
@@Testimony_Of_JTFI would assume that many cite the fact that there are many cultural divisions in Chinese population and that as chinese government is hard at work trying to suppress or mitigate those differences, they are inevitably moving toward separating again. China has many other problems including population imbalance and corruption, but I dont think things will come to head for a while. What I expect is that chinese leadership will shuffle around as government officials jockey for power until government itself starts losing hold of power. Then shit is going to get real.
I think economic motivation shapes this kind of thing, the ocean was a barrier for Portugal and spain simply because they did not know what was to the other side. Once it was possible to use it for the spice trade though, it was suddenly viable. I bet if we discovered important resources in Antarctica we would also invent methods and tools to live there and expand, as long as resources, economy and trade is present in a place it becomes viable for human expansion :3
Thats like the Arctic trade routes. Rn for Canada and Russia their artic parts are useless and uninhabitable but should that melt it opens up a trade more valuable than the panama canal
We know that lots of oil are in Antarctica. We don't pump them because of environmental and political reasons, like how it's officially split by many nations.
That last part... just wait a few decades. And there are plenty of resource, but at the rate of global warming it would easier to just let the ice melt before serving and extracting. . . . (My conservation-heart just died a little because of out what my economist-brain said.
The problem with saying that "few indigenous societies were based around river basins" is that in a virgin soil epidemic, a river provides a disadvantage to the societies around it for the same reasons that it usually advantages them. Because these river systems included sophisticated trade networks, diseases spread up river faster than the Europeans that brought them; this was especially true in the Amazon and Mississippi-Missouri systems, which are some of the largest river basins in the world, and therefore also the most expansive internal waterway systems. So by the time European explorers were able to get to, say, the far up-river regions of the Amazon, they found only isolated "tribes", when had they come in the centuries prior they would have found large and sophisticated societies there.
In your China explanation, my thinking was: "So the reality is probably something more along the lines of a mix of both. The fact that the geography of China made the development of strong state structures along with the nature of the cycle of Chinese state creation and destruction interact in such a way that the cycle both emphasizes the geographic challenges of and is itself re-emphasized by the geographic challenges." So... "It's a mix of all of the above"
This explanation of the dicotomy between geographic determinism and social determinism, and how they shape the development of societies, makes this video one of the best one's you have made so far. When you analise all of the videos you have made throught this lens, they take a very different meaning! Thank you! Excellent content!
What a bombshell of a channel have i stumbled upon when I clicked on a video about the Danube... Man you just make my head explode multiple times a video because it gets so hard to keep up at times. I would love to indulge in these topics and discuss my points of view in the comments but i honestly don't have anywhere enough time to research thoroughly enough so that i feel prepared to enter a discussion here. Also you have probably the most flawless and perfectly understandable pronunciation i have ever heard, this is incredible. In 3 hours of footage of you I haven't seen RU-vid's Auto Subtitle Generation do a single mistake, that's how understandable it is. Either you are an insanely well educated individual thats part of the highest academic elites and still has time to put so much effort in RU-vid or your research and video production workload must be brutal. The precision with which you dissect political statements as well as philosophical views to me is incredible, especially how broad your knowledge base is. And its honestly also kinda scary to me because you hold a lot of power over the worldview of people that watch your videos and don't question at least controversial or key statements of yours. Can't really put in words how impressed I am by this content, there have been minor side sentences of yours, some even part of the sponsorships that i shouted out as "and why the hell isnt that thought at school before we get to chose e.g. what subjects we wanna chose???" E.g. how you explained the importance of the french language for everyone who's interested in history. Imagine you'd actually tell children at school what languages are useful for what, except for just "well it's spoken in these countries, it's so and so hard to learn, those countries culture is in that way similar or different to our countries'" and so on. Crazy. My live might have gone in radically different directions just with those informations at the right time...
Geography and Society seem like Talent and Training to me. Just because you have talent doesn't mean you'll succeed, but those who do well play to their strengths and minimize their weaknesses.
Geography is like Genetics: potential. It doesn't matter if you're a genetically superior sports' player, if you're lazy/ were crippled/ don't like sports/ were never given the opportunity to be a sports' player. It also doesn't matter if your Geography protects you and nurtures you, if you are too inept/corrupt/lazy to make use of it, or if a great foreign power stops you from reaching your potential.
The whole section dedicated to the Khmer was so interesting! makes me wish schools paid more attention to eastern history. As always, great video. Felt identified when you represented the rivalry between Argentina and Uruguay lol.
Essentially, geography can hurt or help _a lot,_ but it isn't the only thing at play. It's up to the societies to either make use of, or squander, those advantages.
I do find the geographic determinists have a lot of good points & that geography can be a major advantage in some contexts for respective nations (and the times they are correct seems to back this up). Of course, it is not absolute & just because a society/nation has a strong geography, it is very clear without the correct management of your geography, it won't be an advantage. Geography can give you an advantage, it is certainly not a guarantee of a successful society/state. Great video as always
Thing is, the quality and features of society always depends on numerous factors. Geography is a significantly important part one, but not the main or only one
I tend to find that they use one single good point to explain everything that countries doing. It's not unique to them, we all do it from time to time.
I did my university degree in geography, although I do IT work now, but it seems rather obvious enough that geography sets the stage for what is likely, but once humans enter the stage and start interacting with it, they can make decisions and do things that defy what the setting would tend to suggest they ought to do. So it seems pretty obvious to me it should be considered a blend of geography and culture/society. Trying to argue one or other other is absolute seems rather silly to me.
I think the two factors should be considered as more ‘the egg and the egg’. Geography I think provides opportunities for nations, which can be impacted by preference and aspects of a society. Rather than determining, I think geography expands the options a nation has. Not a very innovative or out there approach, I’m probably wrong about it anyway lol
Yes, i thought the same. It's a matter of how both aspect affects the population to develop, because no matter how good your lands are for growing, nothing will grow if you never use it.
Hi kraut, big fan of your videos. In light of recent events in Afghanistan and Sri Lanka, I would love to see an update to the continuing story of the Indian subcontinent.
Well bc you showed us in on scene the first book of Peter Zeihan i like to paraphrase him. It goes something like this: "Geography shapes society and technology morphs geography" - which is a good explanation for the Portugal part. Also for LaPlata, he said something like "Geography decides how well a nation does, people (politicians) can follow their geographically determined path or make it all worse", in one book there is a whole chapter on how Argentina should be rich but isn't bc of politicians. Just food for thought, i somehow see the second as a little copout by Peter tbh.
Might I suggest a greater emphasis on Tyre and the Phoenicians when discussing Lebanon? Much like the discussion on Nogales in your three part series on the border and why there is a decent chance my in-laws in Juarez will eventually become Americans without having to move, the fact the dominant culture evolved in a radically different environment and was grafted onto the one being discussed feels like its not being given the weight it deserves. It also feels off to be discussing it in relation to the modern age when - and I may be wrong on this - geographic determinism has always seemed to be more interested in starting points and initial responses to the environment when state formation begins, along with the constraints it continues to play on said state formation and ethnogenesis until the industrial age. Likewise, it feels like climate isn't addressed as much as it should be here. The great empires in the Andes, Yucatan, and the Valley of Mexico developed where they did because the highlands were sufficiently temperate to require agriculture and then expanded down into the tropical regions where the agricultural controls break down. The Amazon was a haven for the peoples fleeing the Inca simply because the environment was so radically different as to make Inca control impossible. Similarly, Cahokia and the Mississippians were a riverine trade confederation which was prevented from developing beyond an inland river thassalocracy by the smaller biomes creating more aggressive fauna which were impossible to properly domesticate. Something which the Andes civilization's existence in a larger biome had less issues with. Lastly, the point above regarding agriculture was given far too short shrift. What kind of crops are being grown has a massive effect on the health of the people living in a society and how their society develops initially. Take Egypt for instance. The Egyptian reliance on the annual flooding of the Nile and extensive meant farmers often spent much of their lives maintaining their irrigation canals. We know from anthropological evidence this meant Egyptian farmers tended to have serious health issues which stunted their growth compared to more fertile empires. This can also be seen in China, where the wetter and more fertile rice growing south tended to be dominated by the dryer wheat growing north.
Good video. I still think that geographic determinism might still explain it all because when you boil your video down to its core you get the following: 1) Either geography determines the success of a society, or 2) A society with good geography sends out armies, traders, institutions, technology, or culture to determine the success of other societies. But I think you are right that the spread and development of useful institutions is a huge determiner of societal success.
The way i see geographic determinism is that geography sets the limit for what a society can do and then society decides how to interact with it's environment. A land locked tribe won't start naval institutions because they don't have access to the sea while people living in an archipelago surrounded by the sea simply can't avoid it. I do agree that institution shape a society and consequently history but geography determine what works and what doesn't. Btw while i don't know much about geographic determinism from what i've heard, easy environments rarely benefit society. Scandinavia has harsh winters which lead to the creation of storage economies and working for the common good as you stated in your denmark video. In a more temperate location that wouldn't have been necessary.
So I have had very similar thoughts to what is in this episode. Thoughts like “how does a nations geography shape their development and history?” This is really informative and I think it’s great! Keep up the good work!
One thing I've noticed about this video (and something that I like) is that it's not as conclusive as other videos of yours. It's inviting. It comes from the perspective of a person who has listened to many geographic determinist arguments and wants to present their own arguments in favor of societal developments, while also recognizing that geographic determinists have a point. It encourages the viewer to try looking at both sides and make conclusions on their own, which then encourages them to do more research overall on a given subject. In other words, it's a lovely invitation into the world of geography vs society debates rather than a finale, and I love this video for it.
If you have ever played a game in the Civilization series you will have an interesting perspective on this issue. In many games your strategy changes as technology develops and you explore the geography. For example you may start as a civilization that is mostly peaceful and religious nestled in the mountains. However as you explore you find a coastline and sailing becomes easier so you settle it. However another civilization wants your coast city and declares war on you for it. This pressures you to invest more into science and military to defend yourself. After the war you now have a strong military and access to the sea. A good play would be to start colonizing islands for access to luxury goods and trade routes. Every Civ player is also familiar with restarting because they first spawned in an absolutely terrible location
One of the biggest difference between the US and the Latin American countries could be the lack of doctrines like the Manifest Destiny or the Monroe's, who fuelled the expansionist desires and eventual development of the US. The most similar thing to manifest destiny, in South America in particular, could be the expansion of Brazil, Chile and Argentina, wich reached it's peak with the formation of the ABC pact and the naval race of those three countries.
16:00 you got a few geography things wrong here. the lack of winter means pests grow year round and need way more pesticide. so the cost of growing is higher
Regarding: 12:44 Not a sailor myself, but aren't the high seas greatly influenced by the trade winds? I wouldn't call the oceans free highways. Or are historic sail boats able to travel in any direction regardless of the wind?
The impact of sheer dumb luck in shaping history is often underestimated, and appreciated by those who read into history. For example, many have attributed Communist victory in the Chinese civil war as an inevitable outcome due to grand historical, societal or even geographic causes. Or because "Chinese people simply wanted communism". Yet some pivotal battles were won by extremely close margins and possibly decided the war. Expert historians generally contend that there was nothing particularly inevitable about how China went down. In one occasion, a communist regiment reached a mountain top mere minutes before the anticommunists reached it, therefore gaining the high ground and winning a very close battle. Rather than some grand historical or geographical reason, Mao may have come to power simply because some idiot recruit overslept by 5 minutes. Some battles were won because by sheer luck it happened to rain on a particular afternoon. Heck, the entire war would have been lost for the communists if Japan had surrendered just 2 months earlier in June rather than in August - a fact that has nothing to do whatsoever with Chinese geography and society. And the fate of tens of millions under communism ultimately rested on Mao Zedong and Deng Xiaoping's personal lifespans. No geographical or societal reason could explain why Mao lived long and died in 1976 and not 1956, before he had a chance to implement his most disastrous policies. Nor can any grand theory explain why Deng Xiaoping was in good health at the age of 70+ to be able to take control of China and steer it into capitalism. Was Deng Xiaoping free of cancer because there was a river or mountain somewhere? No. It's sheer dumb luck.
I think geography is a good starting point for discussions about history, political science, etc. But it is the other factors (culture, technology, geopolitics, state institutions, etc.) that navigate around or with geography to determine development. Love this video and how it really makes its listeners think and understand big concepts with good examples.
My understanding of Jared Diamond's assertion about the relative ease of culture spreading East-West vs North-South isn't about physical ease of travel. It's more about agriculture, and how crops adapted one place tend to get transplanted relatively easily at similar latitudes.
Great video over all, but here are a couple points i felt you didnt adress: 1. Societies have to be around in the first place in order for all of the institutional and political effects to come into effect. As such geopraphic determinism becomes more attractive as an explanation of early societies, and the dawn of civilizations. Then the other effects play a larger and larger role over time as societies themselves self-interact. 2. The north-south vs east-west speed of technological exchange becomes less and less important as technology progresses - im sure Jared Diamond would never dispute this. He only uses it as an explanation for early civilizations. And it is a very compelling argument for the exchange rates over landmasses, where the geography in general changes a lot more when going north-south than east-west. Waterways however is always an exception, as they are the same geographicly going north - south - east and west, as you point out. But this is again geographically (and technologically) contigent.
I think the pre-columbian history has to be considered separate from eurasia because they lacked the same common animals of eurasia and more specifically the beasts of burden which allowed people to traverse long distances over flat terrain. Lacking Horses means that it's much more difficult to consolidate power over relatively flat terrain.
In the New World you forgot to mention the Mound Builders who where a river civilization, especially among the Mississippi. There's also the ancestral pueblos who have also been compared to Egypt except incredibly small due to the rivers themselves being small. Hence Keres being language isolate but also due to being a bunch of relatively small towns in the middle of the desert there was no incentive to conquer until the Spanish arrived. Except all they did was depopulate the towns to the point that they where to useless to keep so they left. Mound Builders meanwhile died of plague while Spain was hyperfocused on Central and South America hence their disappearance being so sudden and unrecorded despite happening at the same time of Spain's exploration and conquests. Possibly because they utilized the Mississippi river system rather then the coast for transportation so Spain didn't see them and only recorded very few towns right before they died of plague while looking away.
Geographic determinism is the foundation Society, livestock and resources are built upon the foundation, with various variations The Andes example of "buckling" the trend is most likely because of the lack of horses and other large livestock in South America Before the formation of unified polity in China, there were an unified cultural identity, namely the Zhou dynasty. Sure the Warring States period perfected statecraft, but the initial Zhou cultural unity were caused by geography
Why the absolutism? Development is multifactorial; divergence between factors and their relationships in determining outcomes are as diverse as human societies themselves. The framing of one necessarily being either the "chicken or the egg" is well beyond the limits of dichotomous determinism.
I would say geography is a large part of it, *but* all it does is deal the cards. Society must play those cards. Some play bad hands well and some play great hands poorly.
This is amazing. This serves to further validate the point that there is no one cut throat solution to a complex problem that has multiple cogs working contributing to give a result
Geography is more important, on average. Society can overcome geography, but it is difficult because that requires a steady consistent governing hand and societal consensus and sacrifice. The Swiss are a terrific example of a society that did just that. Note there are very very few other stories like the Swiss out there.
I think that geography matters a lot more than you think. I also think that geography has little or no effect until it becomes relevant to the degree of social and political development that requires it. For example - the inhabitants of Saudi Arabia sat on literal oceans of oil for millennia but didn't begin to profit from it until oil became the engine of technology and wealth in the 20th century. Similarly, western Iberia has always had a favorable location next to the Atlantic shipping lanes but until humans took to deep sea navigation that position was just as worthless. There is a board game from the 1980s called History of the World that kind of mirrors this assumption. There are seven Epochs in the game, in each Epoch each player plays a single nation that appears roughly in its correct order in history. Each nation gets a number of tokens with which to expand after which its controlling player adds up all of their points for the degree of control of each major area, eg Middle East, South Asia etc. The value of each area changes over times, as do the starting locations of each nations themselves so what may have been a battleground in one Epoch may become a backwater in another. I have always been fascinated by that game and have tried to create a generic version of it, with each Epoch's resources distributed randomly across a random map. For example, in the first Epoch it seems that large navigable rivers bounded by hostile terrain seems to be dominant ie hydraulic cultures. I have always wondered what would happen on Earth if the distribution of these resources had been different, eg what if here in Australia we had had good access to workable wood and stone (ie flint or chert), followed by ready access to copper, tin and a much larger navigable river (the inland Murray-Darling system). It seems that it is precisely because Australia did not have those first resources the local Aborigines could not make use of the later ones, ie easy access to ready iron deposits, proximity to south east Asian spice markets and so on. Ultimately I accept that "geography is not necessarily destiny", but there does in my mind seem to be a very strong correlation.
I Love the Polandball Community. It is about talking to, and teaching each other, about ourselves and the lessons we can learn from each other. No one person or group is wholly right or wrong. We all live together.
"The Aztecs and Inca were more prosperous than the Spaniards who conquered them" - Were they though? By what metric? I mean right from the get-go, it's pretty difficult to determine the wealth of 15th century states with any kind of certainty, as the sources aren't really all that great. Spanish accounts of the wealth of both nations might have been exaggerated to garner support for their conquest. The Spanish definitely had technological advantages over both and managed to exploit internal divisions to further their goals (The Aztec Empire was more of a series of client states that owed tribute to the Aztecs, most of which hated their guts and were therefore ready to help the Spaniards. The Inca Empire was already weakened by a civil war when they showed up.)
the geographic lens is an incredibly important tool to the historian or anthropologist but, like an lens, can warp things and you need other lenses to analyze.
Geography vs Society reminds me of thermodynamic vs kinetic in chemistry. The geography camp (thermodynamic) looks at the world and argues which places are the most suitable for strong societies. It works best, if you are looking for long time periods like centuries or millenia. A geography determentalist would look at a place for a million years. Then he could predict how much time there was an anarchy, Which socities are the most common etc in the next million years. The society camp camp (kinetic) looks at a more short period of time. A society doesnt change overnight. What is the next step? He could pick a date and argue why the society looks like it looks.
10:00 it is chicken or egg because eventually you reach a point where society is dependent on the food source, whether that's agriculture or livestock.
My view on Geographic Determinism is that it isn't just "if you have good geography you'll be a super power", instead it means that geography gives an advantage. Because no matter how good and honest and hardworking and innovative a society is, if they're placed in modern Afghanistan, which is mostly dry mountains and inhospitable desert, they won't fare as well as a not-so-good, not-so-honest, not-so-hardworking, and not-so-innovative civilization that is based in the valley of Mesopotamia or Rio de la Plata. However, when you equalize this advantageous position, and compare civilizations that have been blessed with similar geography, then the cultural and societal differences become more prevalent.
Great little video. Geography and environment are obviously important parts of the puzzle but it is not the only part. Environment gives you options and limitations, you can't be a naval power if you are land locked, you can't be a bread basket if you don't have fertile land and you can't be a petrostate if you don't have oil. There are countries that thrive despite their geography and places rich with resources and potential that are hold down in the gutter by external and internal socio-political forces.
I would say Africans did build complex political systems in rather rugged and harsh regions given how some of the populated regions in Africa arose around the arid Sahel, the Dense jungles of the western coast and Great Lakes and the Ethiopian mountains and highlands but ultimately it just all comes back to what one thinks counts as advanced or complex civilization RU-vidr cynical historian actually did a video on how the history of Africa actually contradicts geographical determinism
As a student of Archaeology I was taught that the dichotomy you (and many others!) propose is a false one. The reality of what we see through time is that ecology, ideology, and technology have a recursive relationship in which each is influenced by the other two and influences them in turn. Most of the mistakes we see from determinists like Diamond is their emphasis on a single part of the process. The general idea falls under the umbrella of Cultural Ecology if you are reading this and interested. Thanks for the videos, they are always a joy to watch and engage with. Can't wait for more.
The Congo Basin in the DRC is also a large source of water for agriculture, and the resources in the east could make it one of the richest countries ever. And then the Saudi Arabia video happened.
I favour geographic determination only when taking the broadest and widest strokes. I do agree though, there is far too much complexity to life and human development for it to be so simple. I find that good old human hubris changes the direction of a people more often than not. There is also a great deal of serendipity that could never be explained by a simple geographic deterministic approach too.
I was happy to see that you indirectly mentioned Peter Zeihan, (who has lately become one of my favorite RU-vidrs), and explained why his positions, which generally seem well-reasoned and well-informed, may not cover the entire spectrum of possibilities. That is, Zeihan has a particular view of the world, but you helped clarify that it's not the only view.
Between determinism and infinite possibilites there's flexibility, a bounded amount of possibility. Within a geography, there's flexibility to how a society may develop. Within a society there's flexibility for its institutions, and within the institutions there's flexibility for the leadership.
You may be overstating Diamonds point a little. He says that agricultural technologies based on plants, as opposed to tools, spread more readily between similar climate regions, which are most commonly found on the the East West axis. Because Egyptian wheat grows poorly in Denmark. Very good show though.
Geography gives you the ability to thrive or takes that ability away. But after that its up to the people living there to take advantage of the geography.
As always excellent video! I think geography acts as the canvas that the painter (or institutions) has at their disposal. You can't make a painting without a proper canvas to paint and a good canvas is useless without a good painter. There are many countries with good geography but are generally not well off due to corruption and weak institutions and countries with weak geography cannot even build the necessary institutions for a well off place. Both are necessary for a strong healthy society. I think the appeal for geographic determinism comes from the fact that geography is so objective and unchanging. This makes is much easier to come up with predictions than an institutes first approach would create, not because one is more correct, but one is naturally easier for conducting useful analysis.
I think the main problem of Geographic determinism is that it is very often done with hindsight. I dont actually see geo-deterministic predictions all that often, usually its "xy happend because of the mild temperatures in the late antique" or something and that might be right or wrong, but it is really hard to prove or disprove and therefor kinda pointless.
Okay, I wasn't a geographic determinist (not at least a hardcore one), and this video convinced me that we have to analyze euach society in a case-by-case basis and it's closer to a shared responsability (a % for social and a % for greographical) on why said society has such a development. Case in point: as a Brazilian, I've always wondered why - even though our geography in the southern regions is highly favorable to economic development - we are still stuck playing second fiddle to the USA. This video helped me to see that it's mostly due to societal questions than greographical properties of the country.
I agree. One theory isn't any less valuable than the other. So when they come together in percentages (positive & negatives) one is more likely to achieve the bigger picture. Furthermore, I think your and Kraut's case study answer is the best way to go about painting the bigger picture.
And, your's and Kraut's case study of the Americas helped me see Kraut's "Mexican-American Border 3 part series" with yet another perspective. Thank you, both.
@@kingace6186 second round is tomorrow, and I can't begin to tell how high tensions are. I'm hoping for the (obvious) best result, but I wouldn't doubt my country's endless amount of stupidity and reactionary rhetoric. I hope you stay well to friend, wish us the best tomorrow! Stay safe.
Personally, I would even go as far to claim that one has to study both society and geography to truly get a grasp on a country. As a native swiss I like the example of our mercenary reputation in the middle ages. As farming land becomes more scarce the further you go into the alps there has been the peculiar development of young swiss men, that usually weren't in line to inherit any land of their fathers, going into mercenary service as a way of living (this had the effect that swiss mercenaries became renowned throughout Europe for their skills and discipline). This is undoubtedly is due to the geography of the alps (if Switzerland were to be flat with a lot more fertile land, I would claim that the mercenary development wouldn't have happened to the scale it did in our timeline). However, this raises the question for me, why we don't see the same development in Tyrol or in the french part of the alps, a question I am inclined to believe that cannot be explained by simply looking at geography. (anybody feel free to correct my history if I got anything wrong.)
I'm not a firm geographic determinist either but being familiar with Zeihan a couple of counter points did occur to me. -In your Russia video you argued that it's the institutional legacy of the Mongol conquests that shaped Russia, but Zeihan argues in his book Dis-United Nations that this vulnerability to conquest from the steppe is a fundamental geographic quality of the country. The idea is that Novgorod was never going to be the precursor to Russia because someone like the Mongols was always going to arrive there eventually. -The competition between early Chinese states that you mention is arguably a product of the very large area of flat fertile terrain that makes up the Chinese heartland. Being so large and open with no natural boundaries yet so densely populated is a recipe for the kind of conflict and consolidation that happened there. Zeihan argues that when you have the kind of land that exists there surrounded by rougher more defensible areas it usually forms the core of strong states; the only difference between China's heartland and other places that have those features such as France and Annatolia is its sheer size, which meant the process of consolidation was much longer and more intense.
why not simply both? Without good geography, it is incredibly hard for people to prosper. Not impossible, just hard. Also, what makes a good geography is subjective and down to how its utilised of course. Which brings it to the second component. Even what may seem bad geography, if utilised right, can actually be amazing geography - just needs a different approach from what one may be used to. And even with an amazing geography, if you don't utilise it properly, you're getting nowhere with your society despite the seemingly wonderful conditions just waiting to be taken advantage of. You simply need both. You need geography that can be benefitted from, (which can take many different forms, some being less obvious than others) and a society that develops ways to know how to benefit from it.
Great video, but I think there also needs to be a distinction between physical geography and human geography. Geography is a broad field of study that seeks to understand spatial relationships between places, people, and things. So, while physical geography determinism can only explain so much about societal patterns we observe, I think a geographic understanding can help us adapt societies to bring about more equity that is possible for each location. Tobler's first law of geography describes how every place is related, but near locations are more related than distant ones.
