Would Europe be like the native americans if it was not conected to the Fertile Crescent?

or worse?

Probably be just as bad.

Way worse, lets be honest the great powers thet conquered the world in the last century, Germany, England, France, were subsaharan mudhut tier for millenia and would still be without the mediterranean uniting them to the cradles of civilizations

>implying that wh*tes are not already the lowest form of life.

Without the Minoans there would be no Western civilization to speak of. Greeks were nothing more than Minoan larpers that never achieved the comforts of Crete at its height.

In the 17th century BCE, Minoan rulers enjoyed clay piping, flushing toilets, and more luxuries and higiene than their European counterparts in the 17th century AD, a full 3400 years later.

Meanwhile Crete society had little poverty, no slavery, widespread literacy, and a liberal, carefree, freedom loving culture centered on trade, fashion, sports and the arts, all factors that we associate today with the "Western ethos" and which make them stand out among ancient civilizations.

Without Egypt and the Levant there would have been no Crete, and without Crete there would have been no Greece or Rome, so I'd say the connection was pretty significant.

>Some literal minor culture at some point invents stuff
>Totally forgotten afterwards, has to be discovered by archeologist
Modern europeans invented most things independently. As his/tards do not tire to tell us, we all lived in mud huts and destroyed rome wantonly.
>all factors that we associate today with the "Western ethos"
Became a thing in modern europe because it was possible and advantageous in the societies that developed. Wether or not some medniggers had a similar society before breaking down one way or the other was of no consequence.

Sounds like a literal paradise island. Sad it got destroyed by one giant fucking wave.

they were not sub-saharan tier as they had the wheel and agriculture. What do you think would have happened when the population grew to a certain size? northern european tribes were semi-nomadic and constantly bumping up against each other, and they aggregated over time to form nations or tribal confederacies like the goths, this would have happened without contact with the mediterranean and the middle east

rome was not destroyed wantonly they'd been the enemy for centuries and it was decaying and collapsing on its own. Were it destroyed wantonly we wouldn't have inherited any of its civilisation

there would be other civilisations instead

Where do you think they got the wheel and agriculture from idiot?

That was hyperbole. Point being that modern europe was in the muds at some points after the end of rome and pulled itself out on its own.

Agriculture has been invented in so many place simultaneously it's hard to conceive of europe not developing it, contact to the middle east or not. Perhaps they would have lacked some crops... but then, it's not exactly an achievement having a certain plant growing in the place you happen to live in.

Wheat and barley were brought from the Middle East. Domesticated goats and sheep too. Domesticated cattle came from the Sahara.

It's hard to imagine European civilization without any of these elements.

>Agriculture has been invented in so many place simultaneously
theres at best 6, though more likely 4 or 5.
>mexico
>south america
>india
>china
>fertile crescent
>egypt

No, Europe had things going for it that North America did not, like pack animals. That said it would be far less developed had it not been connected to the rest of asia

Everyone was subhuaran mudhut tier for millennia. Also Europe was not quite as bad as you're making out, that just sounds like stereotypical self-deprecating lefty history where you shit on the west because of your limp-wristedness

>implying niggers aren't subhuman parasites who destroy everywhere they go

>t. baby just read germs and memes

You fucking cultural marxist cucks, it has absolutely nothing to do with where your civilization is located, it's all genetics. Aryans are so genetically superior you could literally drop them into the middle of the ocean and in 1000 years they'd rule the universe.

>Complex society
>On a remote British Island
>Had flushing toilet and sewage
>Worked with stone
>Places of worship
>Built in the Neolithic

Given, these people were massacred by Indo-Europeans and only 10% of current British genetics comes from them. It is still possible we could have developed, albeit much slower, without the Mediterranean people.

And that's why whenever they appear the dark ages follow.

man i must say that is pretty damn fine work for injuns considering how old it is.

those masks were created between the 9th and 4th century bc.

There would still be the Sardinians

>were subsaharan mudhut tier for millenia

...

...

>No other mudbrick structures are known from Celtic Central Europe at this time. It is generally accepted that this structure imitated contemporary walls in the Mediterranean region

do they look like Greek walls to you? they look pretty unique to me, nothing like the other med civs.

and so what if they did, the Greeks imitated the walls of the Assyrians and so forth.

Greeks had mudbrick walls since at least 3000 bc

>without the mediterranean
No such thing as "mediterranean"

>uniting them to the cradles of civilizations
Gauls already had a civilization of their own. In fact, Romans and Greeks stole Galatic military technology(breeches, helmet, swords, oval shield, and so on).

yeah but they obviously adopted more advanced walls from the middle east just like what every culture has done throughout history.

show me some shit tier Greek walls from 3000bc

Without the West anything resembling the modern scientific method or modern forms of governance fails to materialize.

After all, the East was wealthier and more developed for millennia and continued to have 95% of people living in wood huts and subsistence farming, along with dying in the millions of famines into the 20th century.

Until the rise of the West, urbanization and monument building was the exception, wood huts were the rule. Seeing as how Egypt and China had spent 3-5,000 years in a mid level equilibrium trap, it's safe to say wood huts could easily have lasted as the norm until the year 3,000.

Inb4

> Ching ching mothafucka, we had paper and irrigation and printing press for so long. Majority subsistence farmer and inventions once per century through the 20th century master race!

>Agriculture has been invented in so many place simultaneously it's hard to conceive of europe not developing it

They literally didn't. Don't get me wrong, I think most people posting about mudhut >wh*tes are just trolling, Europe had a lot of achievements in the last 500 years for sure. But they had no native cradle of civilization, and middle eastern crops (like wheat) were farmed in Europe before Euros domesticated native plants (oats, poppies). Most animals farmed in Europe came from North Africa and the Near East, too.

The scientific method was not developed whole. Many major developments came from Europeans and later America, yes. But proto-scientific methods of compiling information through observation and trial-and-error existed in the ancient Near East and medieval Arabia.

>wood huts
Most significant structures in China were made of rammed earth. They had less timber *and* stone than most of Europe.

>Gauls already had a civilization of their own
WE

subsaharans had agriculture

And where did you get that from?
Some shitty /pol/ infographic with no source made by another neckbeard loser?

You dumbasses must realize at one point that /pol/ is an echo chamber that toys with your sanity.

And look what they accomplished...

>Ching Chong mothafucka, 500 years of scientific stagnation, Asia is the home of modern civilization, we just stagnated and then copied western methods for our economy, science, and governance to troll you. We would be just as advanced either way!

Metalworking got to Europe from Anatolia, it wasn't developed independently.

Thr ABSOLUTE STATE of this board.

They would have though, if they had been cut off from Mediterranean trade with the near east, they would have developed agriculture on their own. It's just why would you bother learning how to farm stuff like oats and poppies when you already have wheat and the information about how to grow it?

The Bantu had advanced agriculture with irrigation canals and metalworking.

Stop browsing /pol/.

>>the bantu
Were an irrelevant band of barbarian niggers who existed to be target practice for western firearms.

Stop browsing /leftypol/.

>ANYBODY THAT DISAGREES WITH ME MUST BE A LEFTIST
Nice try retard.
I don't browse /leftypol/.

Here's a list of names for you to go through, get back to me when you have finished high school

>the celts
Were an irrelevant tribe of barbarians used as target practice by the Romans

why the fuck arent you capitalizing the t, bud? this is the third time ive called you out on this

/leftypol/ are commies scums but they are not anti-racist, not every leftist are alike, retard

This is Great Zimbabwe tier kek

Actually Great Zimbabwe's more impressive

>the third time
>there is only one anti-wh*The poster
Hi newfriend

>stone degrades and gets damaged in the same way as bronze

Why did some ancient peoples just not use stone for anything?

I feel like you just replied to bait man

Poe's Law is in effect. We are at the point where genuine /pol/ posts, bait and satire are impossible to tell apart.

this is the oldest copper axe in the world, it was found in Serbia

>The first evidence of this extractive metallurgy, dating from the 5th and 6th millennia BC,[6] has been found at archaeological sites in Majdanpek, Yarmovac, and Plocnik, in present-day Serbia. To date, the earliest evidence of copper smelting is found at the Belovode site near Plocnik.[7] This site produced a copper axe from 5500 BC, belonging to the Vinča culture.[8]
sad, to be so assbtfo

stop that

what did they mean by this?

threadly reminder that the North American and West Eurasian chalcolithic periods coincided with one another

what does chalco mean user?

χαλkός

>This is Great Zimbabwe tier kek
>Actually Great Zimbabwe's more impressive

oh really

and heuneburg was built in the 7th century BC, most of Zimbabwe was built in 13th to 16th century AD

you are retarded.

That doesn't prove it was developed indigenously. In fact it's taken as evidence of the progression and spread of metalworking, from Northern Iraq where the first copper pieces were discovered dating from around 8,700 BCE to Anatolia and later on to Europe proper.

You are only reinforcing my point, retard.

>Northern Iraq where the first copper pieces were discovered dating from around 8,700 BCE
lol, that's an ornamental piece made from native copper

smelting started later, in Serbia
>The archaeological site of Belovode on the Rudnik mountain in Serbia contains the world's oldest securely dated evidence of copper smelting from 5000 BCE.[2][3]

So you are moving the goalpost to the first evidence of smelting?

OK

>In the Old World, the first metals smelted were tin and lead. The earliest known cast lead beads were found in the Çatal Höyük site in Anatolia (Turkey), and dated from about 6500 BC, but the metal may have been known earlier.

Holy shit

Everyone on this board is retarded as fuck and biased against everything

Didn't you know?

The one who spams his stuff more wins.

Cry harder

no not at all, everything I said is true. You're the one trying to change the topic to "metalworking" in an irrelevant reply to because pictures of European artifacts make you buttmad. I just pointed out the origins of copper smelting in an almost equally irrelevant way.

macron's head is too big. he looks like an alien

My reply was relevant because that poster was using metal artifacts as "evidence of Celts having a civilization", and I proved to him metalworking wouldn't have gotten to Galia without a connection to Asia Minor, which, if you haven't noticed, is the topic of this thread.

you're retarded

Nice argument.

I prefer Nagatoro tobh.

no, cause horses

El seguidor de la rana mágica...

Okay bud, the archaeological evidence I'm loosely aware of, but I'm gonna need a sauce for
>Meanwhile Crete society had little poverty,
>no slavery,
>widespread literacy,
>and a liberal, carefree, freedom loving culture
>centered on trade, fashion, sports and the arts,
because last I heard, we don't know SHIT about who the Minoans really were, as the only shit we have left of this is archaeological records and some of their logs from when the Mycanean's installed themselves.
The Minoans have always fascinated me, so gibs. I want to know about these mystery people.

RED

Way worse. eurangutans were inferior to Incans even with their fancy guns and metal stolen from other peoples. Without them? not a chance

No, Poe's law is not in effect. Sometimes people really are too stupid to get what's being said. Example: you.

Who cares about tree niggers

They lived in the mountains though.

Who gives a fuck

You?

>I proved to him metalworking wouldn't have gotten to Galia without a connection to Asia Minor
Where did you prove that?

>RED
What did he mean by this?

...

Don't forget the fashion. Unfortunately this didn't carry over.

>ywn live in a perfect island paradise with qt Greek girls walking around with their tits hanging out
Why live?

We seriously got the short end of the stick

What population? The population of Europe? The population of a tribal settlement? Semi-nomadic people by definition don't overpopulate because they just move away. Somebody has to give them the idea to settle down and think about how to make a higher population sustainable.

Maybe you misunderstand tipping point/critical mass theories. It's really not the number of people that counts. It's the conditions those numbers create. Conditions like density, permanent settlement, a sophisticated economy requiring accounting and a scribe class, all of which tend to depend on foreign trade and exchange of technologies. Many of the earliest permanent settlements in Europe were industrial and trade centers. Notable examples of early urbanization are found on Med. islands like Malta and Cyprus, and there are really no contemporary equivalents in France, Germany, etc. That is probably not a coincidence.

You wouldn't consider them sexually arousing if you saw them all day every day mate
Look at nudist comunities, do dudes there have an erection all day? No, because its the sense of mystery that makes naked body attractive to us, if its revealed, it becomes meh

Agreed. I like living with the mystery of tits. But if I grew up in a bare-breasted culture, I'm sure I would appreciate female bodies equally in different ways. I'm more of a waist, hips, and butt guy now that I'm a grown man, which would have been inconceivable to my younger, anime-titty obsessed self.

Most bare-breasted cultures also preclude sleeves and abdominal coverage, so it's interesting that Minoans developed some sense of modesty that deliberately excluded the breasts. Maybe because men wore their hair long, wore skirts and went barefaced, it was a way for women to signal their femaleness in an otherwise confusingly effeminate society.

It wasn't an effeminate society. You are proyecting modern values onto them. To the Minoans, having long-hair wasn't a sign of femininity.

Then again, they did have a greater degree of gender equality than other ancient cultures. Women could achieve a high social standing, and weren't considered little more than property as it was in most civilizations of Asia Minor. They also worshipped a Goddess, and females occupied most of the clergy.

But I'd stop short of calling them feminist, feminized, matriarchal, or any of that bullshit which is just projecting modern values onto them.

It was still a male-dominated society and as far as we know, all their rulers were male.

>You are projecting modern values onto them
You're right, and I know better. I should be more careful.

nudity in itself being arousing is a modern invention of (neo-)puritans and the spread of this ideology from the axis of societal autism (germany-britain-america)
t. live in a country where nudity is viewed as fairly normal but cultural contamination is making it taboo slowly

If Africa was so advanced

how did Europe conquer them?

africa was kangz
but europe was emperors

i find it funny many on /his hype up african achievement

they have mettalurgy, they had advanced writing systems before Europe

yet Isaac Newton with the release of the principia single handily surpassed the collective achievements of Africans

>the collective achievements of
all indoeuropeans before invading europe.

Welcome to Veeky Forums

Fucking impossible to have a civilised discussion