What's the magic behind this area?

>he included the two countries that created the modern world
>he didn't nclude two irrelevant literal shitholes

Seems about right.

It's pretty cool that all those cities were in the Roman Empire at that moment, it really covered about the entire relevant world, past and future.

But it didn't cause it, it just managed to rule it all for a time.

Sorry. I meant to say that the area is magical. It's magic!

It's the home of the Mediterranean master race.

The Eastern part was great when it was still white, but turned to complete shit as it degraded racially.

It's fairly accessible. Human migration waves swept through the region constantly bringing with them language, culture, technology, etc. Much of Africa is barred off by the Sahara, India is only really accessible through ocean faring or mountain passes, and China has a narrow steppe corridor.

By comparison, the Middle East is quite easy to enter and pass through, and the Mediterranean is pretty calm compared to the Oceans. There are also extensive river systems that cross the MidEast and France.

So we've got one guy saying it's because it's difficult to access, and another because it's easy to access.

Bravo historical materialists.

There's a ghost that floats about the earths surface, giving subtle benefits to who it floats over.

It started over Mesopotamia, then slowly shifter into europe. Then it reached North america in around the 1800s (give or take). Now its floating over Japan, Korea and China.

As you can see this coincides with the rise and fall of great civilizations.

>Now its floating over Japan, Korea and China.
>that region's total contemporary contribution to civilisation is anime and kpop

And what is the main interest of this website?

Its /a/.

Where is your industry going? China.

It's pretty amazing.

Remove any part of that region from history, and our world today would be completely unrecognizable.
Remove anything outside that region, and nothing much would be different.

They're both saying the same thing. One is just emphasizing that it's easier to reach and travel through water than by land.

>historical materialists
You keep using that word

Besides things like paper and modern numerals and a lot of agricultural products.

They're saying the complete opposite. One is saying that it's difficult to access, and he presumably means that this makes it safer (which is retarded since all notable military powers were within that region). The other is saying that it's easy to access, which I guess makes it easier for new ideas and things to come in from the outside (which is equally retarded since almost everything of value originates from within that region).

Either way, Jared Diamonesque random nonsense.

Meh, there was already papyrus and parchment. And hard to say how much of an effect Indian numerals really had.

Yeah removing the new world would so inconsequential.
Gosh I'd hate rape your cute ignorant little ass if I could.

Yeah where would we be without the invention of peanut butter.

>and he presumably means that this makes it safer

That was never implied. The only thing difficulty by land meant was that ship technology got a boost. That's all.

>Jared Diamonesque
You can't just jump to another bullshit term after failing to justify the first.

>(which is equally retarded since almost everything of value originates from within that region)
Except things like domesticated animals, the number zero, etc. Also that was not what implied. Sure, it's easy to enter from the outside, but the whole point was that the region was easy to travel through no matter where you started, inside or out. An idea in Babylon can work its way to England pretty easily, whereas an idea in India can't easily get to China without taking one huge detour around some incredible topography.

You are literally projecting memes onto people trying to have an actual conversation.

bump

probably the region or tract with the greatest amount of diversity in topography --> geography

civilisation naturally moves from one point of progress to the other as the resources are consumed/used up

Yes because the Middle East was full of resources that have since been used up.

It's so entertaining to see what stupid nonsense you materialists will come up with.

Earliest animal domestication happened in Europe (dogs).

Also both the Egyptians and Greeks already had zero.

>Trajan conquests
>implying those were tangible
>implying those were that substantive
>implying that didn't cripple Rome in the long run

It was well connected and together had the largest interconnected population of humans on the planet.

Was the Mediterranean the ideal place to sail and develop maritime tech on the entire planet?

>largest interconnected population of humans on the planet
>what is China
>what is India

Yes, it's the one place on the entire planet that has water.

I think so. It increased the value of trade going through the strait of Gibraltar so it benefited open ocean sailing also. Portugal and Spain could send a ship down the coast of Africa and there would be plenty of opportunities to flog whatever goods they found down there around the med, spurring on more expeditions and more innovations like the carvel hull.

>thinking that exceeded the population of all of Europe and the Near East
Persia by itself ruled over nearly half of all humanity at one time.

China got a head in tech in some regards though when they had a population explosion during the Tang dynasty. India however seems to have been kind of cut off from the rest of the world. There was spice trade, but not much else it seems. Maybe it's because so much of the sub continent is covered in hard to traverse jungles and the impassable Himalayas to the north? I don't know much about Indian history.

The Achaemenids? Yes it was estimated at their height they had dominion and control over something like 44% to 47% of the entire human population. Pretty damn impressive.

>Persia by itself ruled over nearly half of all humanity at one time.

No it didn't, stop believing what some random Greek who didn't even know about 90% of the world wrote. China and India each individually had a larger population than the one in the OP.

>China and India each individually had a larger population than the one in the OP
No they didn't.

Yes they did.

but user, by factoring out material reasons we can find the cultural, ideological, religious and sociological differences that actually mattered instead of confirmation bias, speculation and memes

...

When it comes full circle will the world end?

>it just goes South of Japan
kek

Doesn't work like that, for example you skipped Alexandria, Jerusalem, and Constantinople because they were relevant around 200 BC, AD, and 600 AD which makes them more recent than some cities farther West. Similarly Paris was already relevant before Venice.

Also America isn't a real place, just an offshoot of mostly Britain and France.

Bullshit

Also Babylon didn't even exist in 4000 BC, it was founded after 2000 BC, while Memphis was the capital of Egypt since before 3000 BC. And a better date for Athens would be 500 or 400 BC.

>avoiding Japan

Lmao I chuckled

It's okay, we want you to kill yourself too.

That is the power of irrigation, user.

t. retard who doesn't understand that the Near East i.e. Levant and Mesopotamia were urbanized and heavily sedentary with aggregate waves of pastorals thousands of years before Europe became relevant population wise.

>implying the Indo-Gangetic Plain and the Yellow and Yangtze Rivers weren't as magical
Also, what the fuck was going on in Britain when Babylon was an empire? Why are they in this same vaguely-defined category?

And? That doesn't invalidate the fact that the vast majority of domesticated animals originate outside of Europe. Sheep, Pigs, Llamas, Alpacas, Camels, Donkeys, Horses, Chickens, etc.

Ever heard of the Industrial Revolution and the British Empire you drooling hopeless retard? Unironically kill yourself and never post again.

Pretty sure this is bullshit so just going to look up the first one.

>The history of the domesticated sheep goes back to between 11000 and 9000 BC, and the domestication of the wild mouflon in ancient Mesopotamia.
>Mesopotamia

Yep, it was bullshit.

So why doesn't the blob on the map extend to persia and India if it's just any successful city or empire regardless of era? And Persia directly bordered and then included babylon in case you're thinking of geography.

See India and China have been all but irrelevant.

It's obviously not about "success" but about contributing to our world. It also seems to follow relevant cities.

>Mesopotomia
>Europe

Are you serious?

>India and China have been all but irrelevant.
They've been pretty relevant to south asians and the chinese, who together make up about 40% of the world's population.

>It also seems to follow relevant cities.
So where's Ctesiphon? Delhi? Xi'an?

>who together make up about 40% of the world's population.
Being numerous =/= being relevant.

>So where's Ctesiphon? Delhi? Xi'an?
How exactly are those cities relevant to the world?

Are you retarded? Look at OP's map again, and then look up Mesopotamia you idiot.

But the poster I was talking to didn't say that the earliest animal domestication happened within the area highlighted by OP's map, he said it happened in Europe specifically.

No I didn't, you're the one moving the goalposts. We're all talking about the area in OP, not Europe.

The answer is obviously ley lines

>Giza can be approximately connected to a couple of totally irrelevant places through some lines

Amazing.

>revelant
>european
>cities

literally Detroit tier in a decade, watch and learn.

organized religion, checkmate

What do you think non-European cities look like?

Ctesiphon was the capital of the Arsacid and Sassanid Empire for nearly a thousand fucking years and on top of that the most populated and rich city in the late 5th, 6th, and 7th centuries outshining even Constaninople.

But what did it contribute to the world?

But Egypt, Greece, and Babylon came before this?

Giza is clearly the most powerful location though, since it sits at the intersection of 10 leys.
Did you even read the map?

Murals, friezes, revival of such fashions that had a huge impact on Eastern Roman/Byzantine culture which were transmitted to Western Europe? Persian and Byzantine court traditions and diplomatic overtures played the model on the basis on what Western world would use for their own and on top of that you had the settlement and revival of Neo-Classical philosophies, music, chess, backgammon, and so forth.

>that desperate backpedaling

and there's a reason everyone switched to paper

What?

Yeah, it's cheaper.

Way cheaper than parchment (you need to kill an animal for that) and more durable than papyrus (which, in addition, requires a specific plant).

Cheap paper is the foundation of a massive pre-computer bureaucracy.

The meme belt.

>The Eastern part was great when it was still white, but turned to complete shit as it degraded racially.

The hell is this stormfront nonsense? They never 'degraded', most of them were never white to begin with and it's irrelevant.

Bitch please, they only became brown with Arab conquest and Negro immigration.

Gee I wonder...

...

...

...

...

...

Kys retarded poltard

Is there some point you're trying to make with this?

You need an IQ of about 10 to figure out what all those pictures have in common.

Obviously obelisks carry some ancient magic that makes a city relevant, duh.

They're the real life monoliths.

They're all Egyptian monoliths. So what. You're not implying the Egyptians went and built that in London are you?

No obviously it was ancient aliens.

I seriously hope you're memeing here because there's tons of accounts of Romans just stealing obelisks from Egypt to show off and it's not difficult to imagine France and the UK doing the same given their own romps through the area

>Paris
>1700
Why?

Why not?