There was a theory (disputed and in some cases discredited) that basically said this is why most historical empires started around a river surrounded by desert. Their subjects were more willing to put up with oppression because going somewhere else was hard.
My first thought is that that kind of location also makes invading harder. For thousands of years, armies had to acquire most of their provisions on the road because logistics are hard when you’re marching thousands of people on foot, and “acquire” usually meant “steal” even on home territory.
Being invaded fucking sucks, so it’s quite possible that a lot of people were willing to trade personal liberty for security.
There was a theory (disputed and in some cases discredited) that basically said this is why most historical empires started around a river surrounded by desert. Their subjects were more willing to put up with oppression because going somewhere else was hard.
I thought it was because land around the river is more fertile than in the rest of the desert
My first thought is that that kind of location also makes invading harder. For thousands of years, armies had to acquire most of their provisions on the road because logistics are hard when you’re marching thousands of people on foot, and “acquire” usually meant “steal” even on home territory.
Being invaded fucking sucks, so it’s quite possible that a lot of people were willing to trade personal liberty for security.
It’s really easy to think of examples of that, wow. I don’t fully buy it but i can see how it could be a factor in some civs.
Counterexample: Rome, most European countries in fact, plenty of Asian countries which started in fertile lands etc