|
Post by oldpop2000 on Jan 4, 2016 12:27:29 GMT -6
This thread is for discussing the above statement. Geography is the key to the actions of most states in the world and in history. This does not mean they won't try to expand to overcome that limitation, but in almost all cases, it eventually fails. There are numerous examples throughout history. There will always be exceptions, nation-states that managed to expand, and hold their expansion for many centuries, but on the whole, it is true.
Let's all keep in mind, that the general subject Geography has two major sub-branches. One major branch is Human Geography which includes Economic, Population, Medical, Military, Political, Transportation and Urban.
The major branch, the one we are all most familiar with is Physical geography includes Climate, Biography, Water Resources, Oceanography, Orology.
It is a very diversified field and the general statement about nations and their geographic fate includes all of these.
|
|
|
Post by kyle on Jan 4, 2016 17:50:32 GMT -6
Geology has a huge impact as well, which is what you may be referring to with Orology (Branch of geology having to do with mountains). If the UK for example did not have coal for example or a resource poor nation such as Japan if they had access to oil would likely evolved (if that term is applicable) much differently.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Jan 4, 2016 18:14:28 GMT -6
Geology has a huge impact as well, which is what you may be referring to with Orology (Branch of geology having to do with mountains). If the UK for example did not have coal for example or a resource poor nation such as Japan if they had access to oil would likely evolved (if that term is applicable) much differently. Yes, absolutely. The fact that Britain is a large island and isolated from the European continent allowed democracy to develop. For Japan, moving into the industrial age around 1870 after the Meiji Restoration created a problem. She does not have any real natural resources like coal for coke, iron ore, nickel, chromium, rubber, copper. She does not even have enough arable land. She has a narrow coastal region. All this contributed to her urge to look eastward to Korea and Manchurian, then southward toward Malaya, Dutch East Indies, Philippines and other southern areas where those natural resources existed. This, of course, started WWII. Japan's problems with geology have reared their ugly head with the recent large earthquake off her coast. Because of her lack of natural resources, she has had to resort to nuclear power. These plants have to be on the coast near large quantities of water. This also places them nearest to the long subduction fault off of the coast. Central Asia has a geology problem with high mountains and frequent large earthquakes. Russia's geography has left her vulnerable to invasions from both east and west, hence her propensity for tyrannical governments. Nothing seems to have change for her yet.
|
|
|
Post by axe99 on Jan 4, 2016 18:28:38 GMT -6
While I think a nations' geography strongly influences how it behaves in a geopolitical state, I wouldn't be as deterministic to say that nations can't escape their 'fate', per se, or that we understand the various elements of geography well enough to fully understand what that fate may be if they could.
Nations have interests, and those interests are (perhaps most) often related to their geography, but the full spectrum of a nations' interests isn't fully bound by geography, thus a nation may act in a way its geography may not initially suggest, due to other non-geographical interests.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Jan 4, 2016 20:31:47 GMT -6
One writer has stated it this way: " Geography is the backdrop to human history itself....A state's position on the map is the first thing that defines it, more than its governing philosophy even. "
Geography basically defines a nations position on a map, its constraints and its opportunities. Look at Mesopotamia and its history. No natural borders, open both east and west to invaders. This explains tyrannical rulers and their philosophies. Numerous different tribes all warring against each other. The only arable land is between the Tigris and Euphrates rivers. Look at all the inventions and new ideas that came from the area: beer, domestication of animals, urbanization, laws etc. The list goes on and on. However, Sumeria, Akkadia, Assyria, Babylonia all were destroyed by invaders from the east or the west. All this contribution under the rule of religious leaders and tyrants. However, none of these great civilizations could escape their geography. The lack of any natural borders like those in the north.
I strongly believe that if we dig deeper, we will find that a nations interests are related directly to their geography. The detailed study of geography and all its sub-branches is fairly new. Military geography, believe it or not, is very recent. We've always study geography and war, but now its a sub-branch of Human Geography and now studied in universities and war colleges.
|
|
|
Post by axe99 on Jan 5, 2016 0:46:18 GMT -6
No question that a substantial proportion, and easily the largest part, of a nation's interest is defined by its geography, but things like trade and inter-marrying of powerful families and migration and the like start to niggle away at the edge of that (unless we define geography's impact very broadly, but if we're going to say "geography is everything" then saying geography defines a nation's interests isn't saying much anyway).
For example, during the middle ages through to the 1700s at least, nations would go to war and acquire/lose territory because of marriage style arrangements and births or deaths that were not a direct geographic factor.
It could also be said that many of the larger Empire's possessions went beyond geography to depend on trade after a certain scope. Was the Spanish colonisation of the Philippines solely due to their geography, or were other factors involved as well? I'm not suggesting that Geography isn't important, but it's not the only game in town.
It can even come down to the ruler/ruling group at the time getting strange notions in their head. This thread was triggered by a comment about Germany never having an aircraft carrier, when it almost definitely would have had one had WWII not started for another year or two, mainly because Hitler wanted a 'power projection' fleet, regardless of it making limited geopolitical sense to Germany.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Jan 5, 2016 12:23:14 GMT -6
No question that a substantial proportion, and easily the largest part, of a nation's interest is defined by its geography, but things like trade and inter-marrying of powerful families and migration and the like start to niggle away at the edge of that (unless we define geography's impact very broadly, but if we're going to say "geography is everything" then saying geography defines a nation's interests isn't saying much anyway). For example, during the middle ages through to the 1700s at least, nations would go to war and acquire/lose territory because of marriage style arrangements and births or deaths that were not a direct geographic factor. It could also be said that many of the larger Empire's possessions went beyond geography to depend on trade after a certain scope. Was the Spanish colonisation of the Philippines solely due to their geography, or were other factors involved as well? I'm not suggesting that Geography isn't important, but it's not the only game in town. It can even come down to the ruler/ruling group at the time getting strange notions in their head. This thread was triggered by a comment about Germany never having an aircraft carrier, when it almost definitely would have had one had WWII not started for another year or two, mainly because Hitler wanted a 'power projection' fleet, regardless of it making limited geopolitical sense to Germany. There were many reasons why nation-states went to war and still are; marriage of conveniences probably is overblown by the chroniclers of the time. Usually those marriages were because of the lack of resources in one nation and possibly its lack of strategic location. Most of the chronicles about the Vikings were written by clerics two hundred years after the events or by an Abbot in France who had never seen or experienced the Viking raids. Information passed between sources can be skewed and overblown, same with the effects of marriages of convenience. There is no doubt that the human trait of exploration is very important in all this, but the explorers did not have the funding to make the voyages, so they turned to their nations for support. These nations had their own reasons, spices and precious metals were the primary reason: geography again. The Philippines were discovered by Magellan on his around the world expedition and there further colonization occurred. Why? To find precious metals and spices in the Far East. That's how the America's were discovered, Columbus was looking for the East Indies for the same reason, and found the West Indies instead. Why did he and rest go? Because spices could not be grown in the Mediterranean climate of the Iberian Peninsula, Italy, Greece and Northwest Africa. They did not have the gold and silver either, so they headed to the Far East because traveler's from China and the Silk Road had those items with them. That's why Venice and Italy flourished in the Renaissance economically. Geography again.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Jan 5, 2016 14:49:43 GMT -6
I want to make clear that human traits are very important in the study of history, up to a point. However, when you begin to discuss the history of nations, geography begins to have a greater effect. When you get a group of humans together, they do not always make group decisions based on their best interest; This is where geography, be it physical or human starts to affect those decisions. This thread is about group actions in the form of nations, not the individual decisions.
|
|
|
Post by axe99 on Jan 5, 2016 19:31:19 GMT -6
The Philippines were discovered by Magellan on his around the world expedition and there further colonization occurred. Why? To find precious metals and spices in the Far East. That's how the America's were discovered, Columbus was looking for the East Indies for the same reason, and found the West Indies instead. Why did he and rest go? Because spices could not be grown in the Mediterranean climate of the Iberian Peninsula, Italy, Greece and Northwest Africa. They did not have the gold and silver either, so they headed to the Far East because traveler's from China and the Silk Road had those items with them. That's why Venice and Italy flourished in the Renaissance economically. Geography again. Aye, but why Spain and not Portugal, or England? I think we agree - that geography is important but not the only factor, and that groups of humans up to and including states can act for other reasons, from matters of pride (Hitler and his CV) to other factors that aren't directly a factor of geography (like climate and disease - although both could potentially be rolled into geography if we were drawing geography large).
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Jan 5, 2016 20:14:50 GMT -6
The Philippines were discovered by Magellan on his around the world expedition and there further colonization occurred. Why? To find precious metals and spices in the Far East. That's how the America's were discovered, Columbus was looking for the East Indies for the same reason, and found the West Indies instead. Why did he and rest go? Because spices could not be grown in the Mediterranean climate of the Iberian Peninsula, Italy, Greece and Northwest Africa. They did not have the gold and silver either, so they headed to the Far East because traveler's from China and the Silk Road had those items with them. That's why Venice and Italy flourished in the Renaissance economically. Geography again. Aye, but why Spain and not Portugal, or England? I think we agree - that geography is important but not the only factor, and that groups of humans up to and including states can act for other reasons, from matters of pride (Hitler and his CV) to other factors that aren't directly a factor of geography (like climate and disease - although both could potentially be rolled into geography if we were drawing geography large). The Portuguese were very active in exploration. Henry the Navigator, Vasco De Gama and many others. I will agree that there are some other reasons but that in the end, nations, despite their attempts, cannot escape their geographic fate.
|
|
|
Post by steeltime on Jan 8, 2016 7:09:32 GMT -6
Hi guys I'm new here so I hope you can tolerate a newbies comments on your thread.
We are told that over eons of time the land masses move around on tectonic plates. However Seventy years "a normal lifespan of a human" is but a mere trice in time over all and as one human to another I accept what science has discovered regarding tectonics.
The era of which you speak at present was, I believe, to be a causation of greedy European Monarchs wishing to fill their coffers with exotic spices, gold and jewels. A sort of Jackdaw mentality which most of us seem to exhibit by investing time and energy into inanimate objects. I include cars in this list as without a driver they are every bit as inanimate as a stone as are computers and so on.
It was important for continental Monarchies to have alliances due as you say to Geographic location hence the marriages. The exception was England which had the channel as a natural barrier rather than a line drawn on a map. England has been invaded many times but has always been the last point of conquest on most Generals agenda.
From this greed sprang many inventions, maps, compasses, navigation and better and better ships and facilities to exploit "trade". I believe that colonies were just a side shoot of guarding coveted exploitation of someone else's resources and of course this still goes on today (Oil). England for reasons of having very few natural resources of it's own had to engage in trade wars with Continental powers Spain, Portugal, Holland, France or remain a back water as it was back in Roman times.
I firmly believe that England is sliding down the scale of world importance as a consequence of her Geography today. It's a small country without resources apart from perhaps her inventive people.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Jan 8, 2016 8:54:05 GMT -6
Hi guys I'm new here so I hope you can tolerate a newbies comments on your thread. We are told that over eons of time the land masses move around on tectonic plates. However Seventy years "a normal lifespan of a human" is but a mere trice in time over all and as one human to another I accept what science has discovered regarding tectonics. The era of which you speak at present was, I believe, to be a causation of greedy European Monarchs wishing to fill their coffers with exotic spices, gold and jewels. A sort of Jackdaw mentality which most of us seem to exhibit by investing time and energy into inanimate objects. I include cars in this list as without a driver they are every bit as inanimate as a stone as are computers and so on. It was important for continental Monarchies to have alliances due as you say to Geographic location hence the marriages. The exception was England which had the channel as a natural barrier rather than a line drawn on a map. England has been invaded many times but has always been the last point of conquest on most Generals agenda. From this greed sprang many inventions, maps, compasses, navigation and better and better ships and facilities to exploit "trade". I believe that colonies were just a side shoot of guarding coveted exploitation of someone else's resources and of course this still goes on today (Oil). England for reasons of having very few natural resources of it's own had to engage in trade wars with Continental powers Spain, Portugal, Holland, France or remain a back water as it was back in Roman times. I firmly believe that England is sliding down the scale of world importance as a consequence of her Geography today. It's a small country without resources apart from perhaps her inventive people. Welcome to our merry band of men: Nice piece, and I agree that monarchies used the marriage of convenience to overcome geographical barriers and deficiencies in resources. Many times it was used to create alliances with a stronger nation against an alliance that was threatening. England's isolation from Europe allowed democratic ideals to grow. The maritime nature of her people allowed her to seek natural resources and trade in many areas of the world. The industrial revolution started in England and it was the spread of those inventions that eventually spelled the doom of Pax Britannica in the mid-19th century. The rise of socialism in the form of better conditions for her people, began to erode her budgets, taking funds away from the military as the people demanded better living conditions, food etc. We have seen this in many nations over the span of history.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Jan 10, 2016 19:30:40 GMT -6
One of the problems with the geographic hypothesis is that it makes humans feel that they have no control over their future, that nature and location does. We know that technology has overcome many physical barriers like the oceans, mountain ranges and many others. But those barriers still exist in the world and they still limit what we can do and when we can do it. However, natural barriers like oceans, rivers, mountains are not the only geographic barriers; climate, demographics, cultural regions and the ability to get natural resources are all part of the world of geography and they are still areas that we haven't completely solved all the issues. These do have a tremendous impact on our civilization now and have in the past. They have affected everything from political and military strategy to human development socially including language, trade and religion. As one author has stated: " Individual leaders, ideas, technology, and other factors all play a role in shaping events, but they are temporary. Each new generation will still face the physical obstructions created by the Hindu Kush and the Himalayas, the challenges created by the rainy season, and the disadvantages of limited access to natural minerals or food sources."
I think this quote says it best. So, when I say that Nations cannot escape their geographic fate, this is what it means. We talking about what factors permanently shape a nations future and fate, not the temporary ones.
|
|
|
Post by director on Jan 25, 2016 9:47:11 GMT -6
Alfred Thayer Mahan's works may be dated but his strategic thoughts still have a lot of value. He returns over and over to the geographical context for the development of seapower - Britain's fine harbors and commanding presence off the coasts of France and the Netherlands, the shallow waters of the Dutch ports, the difficulty of getting into or out of the Baltic and Mediterranean Seas, and so forth.
Germany and the Soviet Union proved that you can develop impressive naval power despite geographical constraints. But Germany in WW1 never found a way to crack the British Fleet's blockade, and in WW2 didn't have the naval resources to really take advantage of captured ports in Norway and France. The Soviet Union had, I think, a decent chance to win massive early victories at sea if WW3 had started, but again it would have been trying to co-ordinate surface, submarine and air fleets in three widely-separated areas (North Sea/North Atlantic, Black Sea/Mediterranean and Far East). That fleet was optimized for a short war; how it would have fared repeatedly traversing the GIUK gap and trying to get out of the Black Sea and Vladivostok is, I think over the longer run, pretty poorly.
China is going to find some of the same geographical challenges with Japan and the Philippines across their best sea lanes. But they have the advantage the US had in the last century, when the Royal Navy patrolled the waves and the US could spend its potential defense budget on internal improvements.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Jan 25, 2016 22:48:31 GMT -6
Alfred Thayer Mahan's works may be dated but his strategic thoughts still have a lot of value. He returns over and over to the geographical context for the development of seapower - Britain's fine harbors and commanding presence off the coasts of France and the Netherlands, the shallow waters of the Dutch ports, the difficulty of getting into or out of the Baltic and Mediterranean Seas, and so forth. Germany and the Soviet Union proved that you can develop impressive naval power despite geographical constraints. But Germany in WW1 never found a way to crack the British Fleet's blockade, and in WW2 didn't have the naval resources to really take advantage of captured ports in Norway and France. The Soviet Union had, I think, a decent chance to win massive early victories at sea if WW3 had started, but again it would have been trying to co-ordinate surface, submarine and air fleets in three widely-separated areas (North Sea/North Atlantic, Black Sea/Mediterranean and Far East). That fleet was optimized for a short war; how it would have fared repeatedly traversing the GIUK gap and trying to get out of the Black Sea and Vladivostok is, I think over the longer run, pretty poorly. China is going to find some of the same geographical challenges with Japan and the Philippines across their best sea lanes. But they have the advantage the US had in the last century, when the Royal Navy patrolled the waves and the US could spend its potential defense budget on internal improvements. Mahan is now best known for his use of historical studies in his analysis. This started the trend in navies to use this method. His disregard for commerce warfare and the emphasis on the decisive battle have all been discarded long ago. Improvements in land transportation with the development of the railroads in Europe greatly reduced the European need for sea commerce. His insistence upon the primacy of the capital ship was also discredited, even before WW1 and the interwar period. His assertion that battlefleets control the oceans has been shown to be incorrect due to the emergence of airpower. Geography doesn't prevent a nation-state from developing naval power, as long as it has access to the sea. What it does is limit what you can do with that power and I believe that Germany and Russia prove that case well. China is an interesting country. Her civilization began on the North China Plain which is below Inner Mongolia. It is currently one of the most densely populated areas in the world. To the north is the Gobi Desert and to the west the Tibetan Plateau. Both are fearsome obstacles for populating. China has Russia to the north, to the south lie the jungle terrain of Vietnam and Laos. Her economy is now locked into the world economy and any world economic downturn, will cause her much grief including unrest at home if the Communist's can't provide the level of society the people want. Only time will tell if the Chinese can overcome their geographical difficulties and their differences with India and many of the Far Eastern nations like Japan, Taiwan etc.
|
|