What factors cause(s/d) civilizations to rise?

[Chieftess]

I know the 4 major areas were China, India, Mesopotamia, and Mesoamerica, and I know there's factors like access to fresh water (rivers, lakes) that help. What I'd like to know is, what causes other civilizations to arise after the first major ones do, and what land features help/hinder the rise of civilizations. (This is sort of a question/summary thread)

Rivers - Egypt, India, Babylon/Sumeria, and China had them, and farming communities developed. But, why is it that this latitude was the only place where civilization sprung up 6,000 years ago?

Huge seas - I know that Egypt traded around the Mediteranian, giving rise to the Greeks (not sure if they traded with the Romans and Carthagians early on). It's interesting to see what would have come of the Aztecs and other tribes in the Carribean had they continued to grow unhindered. Although, that "sea" is larger, and there are more islands, but, it might as well be the southern Medditeranian with the Sahara Desert in place of the Atlantic Ocean.

Narrowing Land (Triangle-shape) - This, I think, was a huge factor in Rome's fall. You had the Huns, who were being pushed in from Asia, competing with the Goths, Germans, French, etc, for what land was left (northern Europe). They couldn't go into Africa as the Middle East was pretty much occupied by the Byzantines. They couldn't head south -- it was all China, India, and jungle. They couldn't head north, Siberia was there.

Chokepoints - Aztecs had one, the entire Middle East is one. This is why Israel has always been (and still is) in contention for the ownership of that single strip of land connecting 3 continents. It's got strategtic, and economic value. The Aztecs and that region, IMHO, was starting down the same path by the time they were discovered. Granted, that region got a much later start (about 5,000 years late) than the Medditeranian).

Huge stretches of land - Asia. The only 2 major civilizations (early ones, excluding Korea, Japan, and a host of SE Asian nations) were India and China. (as well as Mongolia later on) My guess it that since there was so much land, any people forced out could easily resettle elsewhere, eliminating the need for competition. Their backs weren't to the sea, jungle, desert, etc.

I'll also briefly look through each civilization as they rose.


Egypt - One of the first mass-farming communities along the Nile. They were hindered by the desert, though.

Sumeria - Developed around what is now Kuwait.
Babylon - Now in modern Iraq. They also had the aid of 2 rivers.

Greece - Developed through trade with Egypt.

Aztecs - Pushed into Mesoamerica, and conquered territory to push back their enemies.

Inca - Seems to be the odd-ball civilization of the world, forming on mountains and jungle.

Mayans - Not sure how they developed though.



It also seems that, once a civilization develops, regions around that civilization start to "copycat" the origanal civilization. Whether from trade, culture, or because they want to conquer the origanal civilization to be like them, and acquire their wealth.

Egypt, Sumeria, Babylon led to the Hittites, Persians, and a host of other civilizations in the Middle East.

Egypt's trade along the Mediteranian gave rise to atleast the Greeks (not sure about Rome and Carthage).

Ones I'm wondering about:

Rome - How and why did they rise? I know there were city-states in Rome, and Rome conquered them. But, why did they choose to start conquering outside of Italy? I do know that with each campaign, they had more impressive military parades through Rome showcasing the spoils of war.

Carthage - How did they rise?

India and China - Why weren't there any competiting civilizations around these two? My guess is what I said above about other tribes, civilizations, etc. moving westward, until they bumped into the sea and the Roman Empire.

Aztecs - What would have become of the Aztecs and the Mesoamerica region (provided there was no foreign influence - political, disease, or whatnot)?

Inca - Why is this the only odd-ball (in terms of where civilization usually develop) in the world? Is it because the mountains gave protection? What would have become of this region?

 

[North King]

Rome - How and why did they rise? I know there were city-states in Rome, and Rome conquered them. But, why did they choose to start conquering outside of Italy? I do know that with each campaign, they had more impressive military parades through Rome showcasing the spoils of war.

They essentially rose because they copied other civilizations, they took the domesticated animals and plants from the middle east, took the culture from the Italics and the Greeks, and made them into a powerful nation. The main reason they expanded was probably their simple desier for more, like most civilizations.

Carthage - How did they rise?

They wer at a strategic area, controlling East West Med trade.

India and China - Why weren't there any competiting civilizations around these two? My guess is what I said above about other tribes, civilizations, etc. moving westward, until they bumped into the sea and the Roman Empire.

Ah, but there were. China and India were not uniform monolithic entities, they were made up of a myriad of different cultures and states. It was their relatively homogeneous geography that led them to be united, and India was enver reconciled until the Modern Age.

Aztecs - What would have become of the Aztecs and the Mesoamerica region (provided there was no foreign influence - political, disease, or whatnot)?

They probably would have continued to vie for power in Mesoamerica, perhaps the Zapotec navy could've reached the Andes and gotten llamas from there, but all in all, Mesoamerica had reached its limits. Even if it had united, expeditions into the desert would've proved only temporary conquests, evn more so with the islands to the east and jungles to the south.

Inca - Why is this the only odd-ball (in terms of where civilization usually develop) in the world? Is it because the mountains gave protection? What would have become of this region?

Probably because of the one factor you seem to have overlooked: readily availble domesticates. The Incas, or, more accurately, their predecessors, had access to potatoes, which, freeze-dried, served much the same purpose as other nations' grain. It was the commodity that could be collected as tax. With the cultivation of potatoes, people settled down to farm in one place, and they gradually developed the civilized aspects.



I think you have many of the major aspects of why civilizations develop nailed down, but the most important one has been overlooked: food domestication. This enabled sedentary, vastly growing populations, to become viable.

 

[Stefan Haertel]

Carthage - How did they rise?

Throughout the first centuries of its existance, it was still being fed by its mother city, Tyre, which was a very rich city itself. You can say that the Tyrans did an exceptionally good job of raising their child.

 

[Xen]

Rome - How and why did they rise? I know there were city-states in Rome, and Rome conquered them. But, why did they choose to start conquering outside of Italy? I do know that with each campaign, they had more impressive military parades through Rome showcasing the spoils of war.

to put it simple- Rome rose because it wanted to rise- no one knows for sure if the story about the intial foundation fo the republiuc is true (though it I wouldnt be surprised if it is- even thie rledgendary sate for foundation fo thier city, we have found out is in our ball park figure, and probabley right)

they overthrew the Etruscans, whom they were, essentially, and created a league- they had a strategic strong point- both military, and trade wise- located near the coast, the city of Osta was located right on top of a very lucrative area of salt, which as we all know meant much bucks back in the day- the position of Rome itself was on the best crossing of the Tiber river, and thus the the best crossin between north and souther Italy on the entier western coast of the land; Romes 7 hilsl leant it plenty of protection from its early wars.

Rome further rose beyond being yet another, if rather exelmpory city-state in Italy, again, essentially because people took a direct that rather indvertantlly, lead to empire- in the Latin wars, they opted to conqoure the other Latin cities, and, in a rather surprising move, put ehm on the path of becomign Roman citizens, the trend that was to follow until until the reign of emperor caracalla, who finalized the deal by making all free inahbitents of the empire citizens.

by expanding, and conqourin g apeople- and then offering them a fair deal that is mutual advatage for parties, the Romans set themselves for an empire- they veiwed wars of pre-emptive strike as, in some cases a nessicity, though soem will point this as conqouest, they shoudl read up- all of these pemeptive strikes occure after the enemy in question has alreayd made thier hostilties known, and caused a great deal of trouble for the empire- thus, rome coqnoures them, offers them an unheard of goo ddeal for the era, and thus, made them Romans, which had the ill effect of expanding the area in question that had to be protected- forcieng yet more expansion, yet more citizen makeing, and the trend probaley woudl have continued for infitity (and, probabley would have worked out better for the Romans of the imperial era at least, if they had continued it, all said)

 

[Chieftess]

I did mention food as one of the first things. (atleast I think I did) I figured that was pretty much a known.

They probably would have continued to vie for power in Mesoamerica, perhaps the Zapotec navy could've reached the Andes and gotten llamas from there, but all in all, Mesoamerica had reached its limits. Even if it had united, expeditions into the desert would've proved only temporary conquests, evn more so with the islands to the east and jungles to the south.

I'm pretty sure one could have said the same for Rome. "Europe [what's known of it] has been united, and pretty much reached its' limit". I find that viewpoint, well... limiting. It's not to say others in the area are soon going to mimic the origanal civilization.

There's a chain reaction effect. Sumeria->Babylon->Persia->Greece->Rome for example. (i.e., those that wanted to conquer the middle east)

EDIT:

expeditions into the desert would've proved only temporary conquests

Just thought of something here. The Middle East is 90% desert, and yet, Egypt was able to trade with Greece, Rome, etc., which were on more grassy/hilly areas.

I also looked at a population map of the Americas around 1500 AD, and the west coast had a high concentration. That probably would have been another area to spawn a civilization. The Mississippi and Florida region could have yielded something with trade going into those areas.

 

[Dann]

India and China - Why weren't there any competiting civilizations around these two? My guess is what I said above about other tribes, civilizations, etc. moving westward, until they bumped into the sea and the Roman Empire.

Ah, but there were. China and India were not uniform monolithic entities, they were made up of a myriad of different cultures and states. It was their relatively homogeneous geography that led them to be united, and India was enver reconciled until the Modern Age.

Yup. What we perceive today as a "monolithic" Chinese culture is actually the product of a melding of cultures spanning thousands of years. Even within China, regional variations exist, only not so apparent to the foreign eye.

China differs from India only in the fact that we developed a unified script, and that we don't feel comfortable unless the entire realm is unified too (which the ruling class is only too happy to oblige).

On a side note, I look at archaeological samples of other could-have-been script and calligraphy which have been eliminated and I feel kinda sad. Like a certain feeling of loss...

Here's a series of maps. First is Xia and Shang China. The red sites are what could be considered China proper then. The other cultures in black eventually became absorbed into the mainstream.

 

[Dann]

Here in the second map around Shang and early Zhou times, you can see there still are plenty of non-Chinese tribes (the ones in italics) around. The Chu, Wu and Yue will later become Sinicized BEFORE even being eliminated.

 

[Dann]

And here's Warring States China. Only the Xiongnu (the ancestors of the Huns), being nomads, remained un-Sinicized. The earliest traces of the Great Wall were started here. Chu and Yue lands, today's Yangtze River basin, Shanghai, Nanjing etc. were considered "the south" then. Guangdong, Fujian, Hongkong etc. would have been considered then as "the dark unexplored extreme south".

 

[Dann]

And for comparison, the area of the first map superimposed on a present map of China.

 

[Louis XXIV]

I think one factor which might have an affect on what cultures rise to civilizations is "luck", or at least, good circumstances. They don't even have to be fortunate circumstances, just the right kind that forces a culture to do something. Mesopotamia is scarce on resources and hard to defend, so small towns banded together for protection against agressive neighbors, and built large walls. This led to the city state in the area. Eventually, Sargon created a standing army and conquered the region, but Akkad didn't have the administrative efficiancy to hold on to it. Others copied Akkad, and did better jobs, but they too lost their empires.

As for Carthage. An interesting thing is that, although most Phoenician colonies were just trading posts and stopping points for their ships, Carthage was built to be important, because it had to compete with the Greeks (Hellanistic and Punic settlements were spreading throughout the Mediterrainian and Carthage allowed Phoenician influence in Corsica, Sardinia, and, most importantly, Sicily, which Carthage fought control over against Syracuse, a colony of Corinth).

 

[Verbose]

The Incas:
It's more fair to consider the Incas the last (and most successful) empire in that region. Just like in Central America there was a couple of thousand years of development along the same basic patterns displayed by the Incas.