I would really like a video on why so many people seem to love possibleism so much more than geographic determinism, my sample size so far has been very limited, only my AP human geography class of 17, but out of them, I was the only one who felt geographic determinism was a better mindset, and if not, at least something about the 2 ideologies that you've been exploring here
+Darjeeling of St. Gloriana My thought is that while Southern Africa was poor and cut off, Europe, on the other hand, was poor but connected. Europe didn't really have any luxury items outside of gold, silver, and wine, while other territories had a lot of these luxury resources. Other nations in Africa and Asia didn't really want to expand because they believed that had all the wealth they needed inside their borders (Example: China). Europe also had a fairly large amount of strategic resources (if it sounds like I'm using Civ V terminology, it's because I am), like iron, horses, and good lumber to make boats, along with adopting weapons from other cultures to try to get an edge on their enemies, and using those they could conquer less advanced people, and from there it kind of snowballed
Also culturally being connected to the land is very important to aboriginals. And they has many ancient technics for working with the land, keeping balance.
Also culturally being connected to the land is very important to aboriginals. And they has many ancient technics for working with the land, keeping balance.
+Minecraft Jayy Tribal Strayans had the wrong wildlife and plants to work with. Marsupials didn't exactly develop any critters that played the role of ungulates elsewhere, let alone anything big enough to carry people and goods around. The fact that they lived on the most dangerous continent ever didn't help. Cassowaries and kangaroos can fuck you up something fierce with their kicks. Blue-ringed octopuses, Irukandji (a thumbnail-sized jellyfish), stonefish, sharks, sea snakes, and cone snails will fuck your day at the beach. Koalas may look cute and cuddly, but their claws harbor all kinds of nasty pathogens, and many of them carry chlamydia (Deputy Director Bullock should have had a lot of phone calls to make after getting scratched up by that koala). Land snakes aren't any better than the sea snakes. Wombats can swing themselves up to kick dingoes (which can and do eat babies) in the face with enough force to smash their snouts; imagine if YOU were on the receiving end of that. Living in Alice Springs is a death wish, and you don't move to Darwin unless you have a love affair with hurricanes and bipolar weather. Even the geologic chemistry wants to kill you; Wittenoom was abandoned because of blue asbestos, and Midnight Oil sang a song about the miners who had to suffer for it. Just about the only things there that won't try to kill you are emus, native bees (whose stingers, if present at all, are too small to penetrate human flesh), and the sheep (which aren't native to the continent). Straya, cunt.
Culture is more "balanced" based. Region Lacked native crops that could encourage development. Isolation so they couldn't just trade for them. Or even know what they needed to trade for.
Thomas Jefferson But also George Washington? GDP is growing, quality of life isn't. Nigeria, for example, is expected to have a high GDP, but quality of life is terrible.
Dude... Really? I know the comment itself wasn't in good taste. However I think anyone can come to the "conclusion" that was sarcasm/an attempt to be funny. Additionally, what in the hell are you doing replying to year old comments?
Waleed Alam 1.Silk road has been existing since way before the mongols 2. In 539BC, Persian King Cyrus the Great issued the first ever decree on human rights. He freed slaves, declared that all people had the right to choose their own religion, and established racial equality oh did I mention this was 539BC way before the Mongols.
I have a question for you, inspired by your factoid on bananas on this video. Can you describe what the distribution of plants and animals would be like on Earth without human intervention? Like bananas not being in Africa, or horses not being in the Americas.
Thanks for answering our questions! One little follow up question, though... The americas were also cut off, even more cut off than africa, but the aztecs and the mayans built great stone cities and had some of the most advanced astronomical set ups, light years before europeans. They also had complex sewage systems, mandatory education for all children, and they mastered the art of building artificial land. All of this happened many years before such things were even considered in the old world. But when it comes to central africa.... They haven't done anything! Not to sound racist, but it seems that they stopped evolving technologically right after the ice age.
you're a moron. there are tons of videos of African civilizations which have rich in history. the problem is that Europeans destroy or steal most of them. if you actually read a history book or watch the BBC series of African civilizations on RUclips, you would learn something. damn these western schools lack proper history courses.
***** Dude, I'm talking about in our history books and schools. And yes, Europeans did lie in the history books before. Now, it is slowly revitalizing about African civilizations. Why can't you understand that? Do you feel guilty? Do you feel offended? Are you that fragile?
Central Africans actually had surgery, binary code, and fractal systems way before Europeans even thought of it. They also had astronomy and cities. The big issue here is that central African tribes were largely built on oral tradition. Since most of them didn't write anything down, we never actually knew what they were doing or what they knew until anthropologists decided to look into it. We're seeing now that they were a bit more advanced than previously thought, although still behind Eurasia in many ways. Also, they didn't stop technology after the ice age. They had iron tools before Europe.
Hey Cody, I got a question for you. What if the Vikings were successful in their colonization of the new world? I would love to see a video on this topic from you. I love your content and would be great full if you made a video on this topic. Have a nice day :)
The Japanese traditionally lived in the more southern islands. Even in the Middle Ages, Hokkaido (northernmost of the big four islands) was not even ruled by the Japanese. It was the homeland of the Ainu, who were a less developed culture that alternatively traded and fought with the Japanese. Japan didn't really conquer Hokkaido until the 1700's or so, when they basically displaced the Ainu like Americans did the Natives. It was only then that they could look further north at Sakhalin, which they then quickly claimed. They might have at least tried a bit sooner, had it not been for China. Ever since the Ming dynasty, the Chinese had considered the island to be within its sphere of influence, albeit less obviously than some other places. The islanders paid their taxes, so were likely protected indirectly by the larger Chinese military presence closer to Japan.
Can the "Cloud O' Learnin" be in more episodes? I feel that it had a direct impact on my ability to learn from this video, oh and also a video about how geography played a part in the areas of India and south-east Asia would be awesome THANKS!
Can you do one on Central America? I feel as if Central America is often over looked as I never see many videos on it. It has a very interesting geography from El Salvador's volcanos, to Costa Ricas jungles. Thanks :)
In your video, you claim that those regions cut off from the rest of the world were "harmed by geography". I'd like to point out to you that lack of development in the sense of modern civilisation doesn't mean that a region has been harmed. It can be argued that a less developed region with less dense population affords the people living there with a much more sustainable lifestyle than what our western world deems 'progress'. Most of the comforts we take for granted (including my ability to comment on this video) have been bought at a great cost and disadvantage to other human communities and to nature. That said, I applaud your efforts to use youtube to educate, and I thank you for that.
You say that but even then, central and southern African life was not at all sustainable. The idea of agriculture never reached or occurred to them until much time after many stable civilizations were built. And agricultural is one of the biggest factors in creating a sustainable society. It was much easier to die of hunger in central and Southern Africa than compared to West Africa, the Middle East, or Europe. The reason for this being that Central and Southern Africa were not at all sustainable.
+Dhindara Vrel Damn that's a pretty deep way of looking at it. We are slowly killing ourselves with our progressing technology (and might even destroy the planet before we can destroy ourselves), but the reality is that the agricultural society often thought of as 'underdeveloped' really would've been able to sustain itself much longer than modern society will. And the planet Earth would've been healthy and teeming. But then again, you and I would not be sitting here on our laptops in our warm, comfortable houses even watching this video so...
+Chris “Drako987123” R Actually that is not true at all. Agricultural societies in fact suffer more periods of famine than hunter-gatherer societies. This is in fact a very interesting paradox that Archaeologists have found out a long time ago. And if you analyse it carefully, it is not a paradox at all.
I remember reading that China was in a unique position where it could have had an industrial revolution equal to that of England with its vast coal deposits, but a combination of culture/politics, technology and more importantly geography stopped them from being able to exploit the resource.
That's sad but true. The ancients had primitive steam engines but without the need the technology just was treated as a novelty toy. Humans most have a need and a desire to advance otherwise its reletively slow.
+GeographyHub Can you please do a video about how the continent of Australia was formed? I think it would be really interesting as I live there. You could even do a video for each other continent and how their landmasses formed. I hope you take my idea into consideration as it could bring you a lot more viewers. Cheers, Nato
Well, there was a Pangea, then after a long ass time, there wasn't a Pangea. Then after that, there was an Australia and a Europe and an Americas and an Africa (but we don't like to talk about that one)
+Martin Penov Just because the Balkans were the crossroads, that's basically where you end up if you wanted to go from Asia (where the steppes always seems to be manufacturing new ethnicities). It's either to the Balkans, or going into freezing cold Russia
animalia555 same with any river all over the world. They are obstacles but they aren't insurmountable. Rapids are nothing like deserts or mountain ranges.
fatsamcastle On the Nile "The rivers's flow is disturbed at several points by the Cataracts of the Nile, which are sections of faster-flowing water with many small islands, shallow water, and rocks, which form an obstacle to navigation by boats. The Sudd wetlands in Sudan also forms a formidable navigation obstacle and impede water flow, to the extent that Sudan had once attempted to canalize (the Jonglei Canal) to bypass the swamps"
Not really, humans pretty much came out of ethiopia/sudan, which did have big civilizations. He's talking about central africa, another story. But yeah, it's a good theory to be honest.
I am surprised you did not mention disease. In the places that actually have winter, the amount of disease is much lower. This because it both kills off bugs (a major disease vector) and sends people into a voluntary quarantine once a year. Or did you not consider that geographical enough?
I have often wondered about this question but your arguments don't hold much water. With all those forests and "isolation", why didn't they develop coastal trade and a mean sea faring trade system? They are resource Uber rich which should have lead to a vast and wealthy civilization that was centuries ahead of the resource poor Europeans that conquered the world. A major civilization sprang up in the desert around a moderately sized river in the north the was again resource poor. Maybe the lack of resource conflict created a subdued culture that didn't really need to modernize. They do say that necessity is the mother of invention. Like how Alaskan native invented what are basically the first sunglasses.
Gunnar Power what do you mean resource rich? There's vast reasons for not attaining civilisation. Everything from religion to tribal history, to the mere fact that why would they? You can have costal trading, but to build civilisations you need agriculture. Why didn't Australia have vast civilisations? Civilisations aren't the answer, it's not the natural progression. It's just what happened to happen in some parts of the world.
I Vang they had plenty of time to develop cities they just didn't. Even the Inca and Mayan did with much less time. I am just curios about the reason that almost everybody else did but they and a few other peoples around the world just decided ehhh no thanks.
Why did a lot of the Megafauna in N. America go extinct (Mammoths, American Lions, giant sloths, etc.), while many animals of similar size still exist in Africa?
+WoWplayer527 That's mostly due to us having a much more diversified economy not based solely on industry. Whereas Detroit was pretty much entirely dependent on the automobile industry, so when that industry declined in America, so did the city.
+Riley Da Bozz We suddenly no longer have the 'hip' and 'in-style' resources, like China has, what, 80% of all silicon and other rare resources in the world, which of course are the main driving point of modern society. Back in the 1800's though, we had the big steel plants, we had huge amounts of coal, and other major resources considered in-style back then. edit: We also made our competition to good. When we rebuilt Japan and Germany (which of course are course are cornering the Car market) we built them with better and modernized car and steel plants. It was suddenly went from America having the best and cheapest goods to rebuilt Europe and Japan having it
+mo1264king Are you one of those Canadians that learned English as a second language? Because that is the wrong form of either "their, there and they're". The form you ought to have used, is "they're".
Because they were forced by westen nations (especially america who discretly said: hey buddy! Open your borders/markets or we will colonize you like china) So the emperor choose to industrilized the country (japan industrial revolution) for being in mesure to impose some respect with the western nations. It was an industrial revolution imposed by euro-americans at the time, and if they never done that, the japanease archipel were certainly largely being cut in different slices by portugal, france, uk, usa...
The amazon is also covered in jungles (duh) but new researches show that before the arrival of Europeans there were large cities that traded with each other, but these large cities were abandoned once smallpox started decimating entire populations. The large cities split into smaller tribal groups isolated from each other.
After my people arrived in South Africa we started to develop this hell hole and brought prosperity. Now it's been 20 years since we handed power to the blacks(in good faith) and w'ere already in our worst economical situation ever with more murders less employment and more corruption than this country ever had seen...but hey at least the black people can vote cause that's all that matter... Btw South Africa is a Nation you must be referring to SOUTHERN Africa.
HAHAHAHA ever heard of Shaka Zulu? You clearly lack the most basic knowledge of the history of the African tribes that stayed here because this guy is South Africa's most respected black warrior yet he let his people starve to death whilst causing a murdering spree across the other smaller African tribes, but hey you're the expert in African politics XD Let me teach you something today. The Kaapse Boere (Cape Boers) left the cape colony when Britain annexed it and Natal. My forefathers with ox wagons traveling alone did not want to piss large African militaristic tribes off so they set up camps in uninhabited areas and if they needed save passage or land they would go and speak to the local chief directly to initiate peaceful trade. This went well up until Dingane murdered his brother Shaka and lured the Boers into a "trade" deal. After the Boers were in the tribal camp the zulu's murdered the Boers and then turned to kill all women and children! From that they forth war was inevitable with the local tribes. They ended up losing badly and we won decisively If we are monsters then we were made that way by the African tribes and their treachery ps South Africa still is at it's worst economical situation ever recorded and not because it's in a war or experiencing civil unrest or under sanctions like Apartheid(which had a much stronger economy)...no only because a black government is a fail government. I dare you to show me 1 example of a successful African nation since there are 54 countries there should be at least 1 African success story right?
In a lot of sources, they do say that the Afrikaner immigrants ended up taking over a lot of the land of the tribespeople who were living there at the time and enslaving some of them. However, the British didn't treat the natives very nicely either, all of them sort of just moved into the lands of the people already living there and killing them and turning their grazing lands into farmlands and stuff. well.
Also neocolonialism since they were governed by the European nations who exploited some of their resources so SURE countries like Rhodesia were set free but at that point other nations had been developed and Rhodesia was undeveloped and exploited so they had less them to develop and they continued to be exploited
Hahaha what a sad excuse! Have you ever heard of World War 1 and 2? yes the 2 wars nearly cost 100million lives and left countless European and Asian nations bankrupt and totally destroyed. There was nothing left just death and destruction yet today all these nations including Germany, Japan, China, Russia, Britain....they all are modern day super powers yet here in Africa decades after colonialism went away you still blame Europe and white people? Hahaha face it Africa is incapable of developing on it's own. It always has been and always will be!
+JAmes STar When this question comes up, one of the first things many people talk about is usually German technology between the end of the 19th and the start of the 20th century. But I am sure, that that alone cannot be the whole answer.
+JAmes STar Germany only attempted trying to take over the world once. The other time was less about conquest and more about influence/ righting a wrong (with another wrong)
If we're 350 years from being able to travel the galaxy and 50 years from settling on mars and 20 years from developing the first invisible cloak, what makes you think a planet out there hasn't beaten us to it already?
+Benjamin Adams You can't really call it their "own way". Agriculture and metallurgy spread to europe in the bronze age through trade with various cultures from the middle east and anatolia. Before that, they were just hunter-gatherers.
+B.C Drisk Because European Imperialism's only goal was to extract resources from it's colonies to fuel their empires. Nothing was given to Africa in terms of infrastructure or institutions except education for the elite. Europeans drew arbitrary borders when fighting over land and basically said, "well, see yah!" and left nations that had no ability technologically, logistically, or economically to create modern nation states from the state many former colonies were in. And mind you that many of these nations are less than 40 years old, and many are experiencing rapid economic growth despite the challenges. Before European Imperialism Sub-Sharan Africa had various kingdoms across Western Africa that had contact with Ancient Carthage, and empires such as Mali and Shonghi came to be in the late middle ages. The Eastern of Africa coast had various city states that grew rich trading with Islamic empires, India, and even China. Ethiopia and Axum were both powerful kingdoms in Classical Antiquity not to mention the former later fought off European Imperialists. Your question presupposes a modern racist attitude of Eurocentric historians. I could ask you in the 12th century why Europe was far behind economically, technologically, and especially in terms of standard of living and literacy compared to the Song dynasty in China.
The JuanTrueKaiser Then explain Ethiopia's poverty and South Africa's relative wealth. Keep in mind Ethiopia was never colonized and south Africa was the last to be decolonized. Explain the wealth that was in Africa during colonial times but vanished after. Along with the fact that the empires did in fact build several railways, water systems, and most of these sub-Saharan African civilizations didn't invent the wheel. Keep in mind I said sub-Saharan i.e Africans and their descendants in North America, South America, Europe, and the Caribbean. Oh, if Colonialism is so bad then why is eastern Europe and Ireland so wealthy compared to much of Africa?
Adam Weishaupt I wouldn't call the Zulu's that powerful, they were after all essentially a small kingdom of 250,000 people maximum. Their claim to fame is more how quickly they grew from a tribe of some 800 and their badass battles with the British. But I agree with Songhai and Ethiopia, both polities with millions of people, grand wealth, and power.
You missed how a nomadic lifestyle is more or less required because you could not farm a single are for too long until the weather changed and it became barren. It is also a reason why national borders dont work well since people need to cross or otherwise move around all the time.
@@skeletorsnan8161 youre wrong. This is just a cope to cover for stupid egalitarianism. There are genetic differences between the races that cause them to have behaviors conducive to creating advanced civilization
@@skeletorsnan8161 There is a book called the "Bell Curve" that goes into how there are differences in races and how they affect society. You will probably just dismiss due to hubris but the differences between race and intelligence have been studied for more than 300 years
@@skeletorsnan8161 I'm not racist, it is just a fact. Iq is heavily effected by the ecology. Africans just adapted to it and are still adapted to it. They did not need to be inventive to survive in Africa and did not have to deal with many invasions or outsiders like Europeans until recently. You can come up with a whole lot of excuses but just be honest with yourself why is that all African nations are underdeveloped? And countries with African majorities so underdeveloped? Look at Haiti and the Dominican republic. Look at south Africa once Blacks gained political dominance. Hell even look at black neighborhoods in the US, and how blacks are doing in other developed countries like the UK. Just be honest and keep an open mind when looking at the data and the reason is obvious. The idea of the human brain being unaffected by thousands of years of environmental pressures is silly. If the reason for why African nations are doing so bad is because of colonization then why are Asian countries doing better even though they too suffered from colonization. Hell, Japan was nuked and Germany was pretty much destroyed in the second world war and yet now they are ahead of everyone else in term HDI.
Central Africa kinda makes sense, but in the case of Southern Africa, alot of people forget that the "bantu" groups that migrated down there did so only a few centuries ago, and by a few centuries, we are talking so recent that this was not long before the Western Europeans began settling the cape. Compare that to the island of Britain where civilization started around Roman times, but there were a decent number of people settled there for at least 10k years. It takes a while for a people to settle down and to develop civilizations. They probably could if the Europeans did not invade Southern Africa when they did.
what makes the geography of Turkey so good for creating empires like empires such as the byzantines to the Seljuk to the ottomans no land created so many empires in such a short time.
Yeah so I'm going to start making lots more videos for this channel. What question do you what answered next?
Hell to the motherfucking yes. Thank you Cody for every video you make, we appreciate it
Why were the native Americans so undeveloped?
I would really like a video on why so many people seem to love possibleism so much more than geographic determinism, my sample size so far has been very limited, only my AP human geography class of 17, but out of them, I was the only one who felt geographic determinism was a better mindset, and if not, at least something about the 2 ideologies that you've been exploring here
+GeographyHub next time a video about the Balkan?
+GeographyHub You should do a video on the Mediterranean.
WHY IS THE MUSIC GETTING LOUDER AT THE END
WHY ARE YOU TYPING IN CAPS
WHY DID YOU REPLY IN CAPS
+Sulthan14 I DONT KNOW WHAT WE'RE YELLING ABOUT
+Derek Troutman LOOOOOUD NOISES
VAGINAS ARE COOL ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
Why did Europe become the dominant continent? (If that is the right way to put it)
simple answer... conflict
+Darjeeling of St. Gloriana War creates technology, and the Mediterranean is a hub for conflict.
+Darjeeling of St. Gloriana Because they had contacts with the Muslims and the Far East.
+Darjeeling of St. Gloriana Because it is a melting-pot for numerous cultures (like the US and see how they have been dominant over the past years)
+Darjeeling of St. Gloriana My thought is that while Southern Africa was poor and cut off, Europe, on the other hand, was poor but connected. Europe didn't really have any luxury items outside of gold, silver, and wine, while other territories had a lot of these luxury resources. Other nations in Africa and Asia didn't really want to expand because they believed that had all the wealth they needed inside their borders (Example: China).
Europe also had a fairly large amount of strategic resources (if it sounds like I'm using Civ V terminology, it's because I am), like iron, horses, and good lumber to make boats, along with adopting weapons from other cultures to try to get an edge on their enemies, and using those they could conquer less advanced people, and from there it kind of snowballed
Why didn't aboriginal city-states ever develop in Australia?
+Minecraft Jayy No contact and few conflicts.
Also culturally being connected to the land is very important to aboriginals. And they has many ancient technics for working with the land, keeping balance.
Also culturally being connected to the land is very important to aboriginals. And they has many ancient technics for working with the land, keeping balance.
+Minecraft Jayy Tribal Strayans had the wrong wildlife and plants to work with. Marsupials didn't exactly develop any critters that played the role of ungulates elsewhere, let alone anything big enough to carry people and goods around. The fact that they lived on the most dangerous continent ever didn't help. Cassowaries and kangaroos can fuck you up something fierce with their kicks. Blue-ringed octopuses, Irukandji (a thumbnail-sized jellyfish), stonefish, sharks, sea snakes, and cone snails will fuck your day at the beach. Koalas may look cute and cuddly, but their claws harbor all kinds of nasty pathogens, and many of them carry chlamydia (Deputy Director Bullock should have had a lot of phone calls to make after getting scratched up by that koala). Land snakes aren't any better than the sea snakes. Wombats can swing themselves up to kick dingoes (which can and do eat babies) in the face with enough force to smash their snouts; imagine if YOU were on the receiving end of that. Living in Alice Springs is a death wish, and you don't move to Darwin unless you have a love affair with hurricanes and bipolar weather. Even the geologic chemistry wants to kill you; Wittenoom was abandoned because of blue asbestos, and Midnight Oil sang a song about the miners who had to suffer for it. Just about the only things there that won't try to kill you are emus, native bees (whose stingers, if present at all, are too small to penetrate human flesh), and the sheep (which aren't native to the continent).
Straya, cunt.
Culture is more "balanced" based. Region Lacked native crops that could encourage development. Isolation so they couldn't just trade for them. Or even know what they needed to trade for.
Quite weird that the continent that held the first humans and civilizations is the most technologically behind.
+Hornchief I'd say the craddle of civilization is the Middle East, although Egypt comes close to being pioneer.
+Leonardo Alvarenga Egypt is generally considered part of the Middle East...
Totally Not A Cylon Well, it shouldn't, it's a transcontinental country like Russia or Turkey.
I think it is due to survival of the fittest.
+Sir George Severn
...please, go on.
Do a video about Canada! I'm not even Canadian but do it goddamn it :D
Why "was" central Africa so undeveloped?
Hmm, I could've sworn it's still the least developed area in the world.
because it had shit geography. They couldnt trade much and trade is the pavement of the road that is progress
Well some countries like Rwanda are the most developed country in africa and it is in central africa
Technically true, but now it is rapidly developing because modern technology relies on minerals mined in central and southern Africa
Thomas Jefferson But also George Washington? GDP is growing, quality of life isn't. Nigeria, for example, is expected to have a high GDP, but quality of life is terrible.
Ya but south africa has a growing GDP and growing quality of life and in Rwanda too
Thank you for the video Cody, we appreciate the work you put into every video you big 'ol globe
So what I'am hearing is the lack of bananas screwed sourthern/central Africa.....mmmmmmmmm
reality dragon no, geography did. how did you come to that conclusion?
Dude... Really? I know the comment itself wasn't in good taste. However I think anyone can come to the "conclusion" that was sarcasm/an attempt to be funny. Additionally, what in the hell are you doing replying to year old comments?
1:44 if you're wondering is how I probably came to that conclusion.
How did the mongols become such badasses?
They were always badasses. Genghis just got them organized.
+phthedude1 Mongols are the reason why the world is less developed.
+Waleed Alam Organized badasses
Damien Green The regulated the Silk road pretty nicely though. Religious freedom was pretty good in the empire too.
Waleed Alam 1.Silk road has been existing since way before the mongols 2. In 539BC, Persian King Cyrus the Great issued the first ever decree on human rights. He freed slaves, declared that all people had the right to choose their own religion, and established racial equality oh did I mention this was 539BC way before the Mongols.
I have a question for you, inspired by your factoid on bananas on this video. Can you describe what the distribution of plants and animals would be like on Earth without human intervention? Like bananas not being in Africa, or horses not being in the Americas.
Man only 4 videos and I've already learned so much. Keep up the great work!
0:49 Africans can levitate?
... seriously dude... it's a picture of a guy jumping
No it's a picture of an African levitating
Decent Anarch is that some sort of Fish?
+Decent Anarch
Sarcasm? Dude it's a fact that Africans can levitate.
Yes.
Your channels bring me great joy, I love you
I don't think people understand how big a role geography played in the development off all civilizations.
Found this channel and watched almost all the videos already. Thanks for making great content!
The lack of horses probably also played a role.
Thanks for answering our questions! One little follow up question, though... The americas were also cut off, even more cut off than africa, but the aztecs and the mayans built great stone cities and had some of the most advanced astronomical set ups, light years before europeans. They also had complex sewage systems, mandatory education for all children, and they mastered the art of building artificial land. All of this happened many years before such things were even considered in the old world. But when it comes to central africa.... They haven't done anything! Not to sound racist, but it seems that they stopped evolving technologically right after the ice age.
you're a moron. there are tons of videos of African civilizations which have rich in history. the problem is that Europeans destroy or steal most of them. if you actually read a history book or watch the BBC series of African civilizations on RUclips, you would learn something.
damn these western schools lack proper history courses.
***** Of course, so why don't you watch the documentary from the BRITISH BROADCASTING CORPORATION?
***** Dude, I'm talking about in our history books and schools. And yes, Europeans did lie in the history books before. Now, it is slowly revitalizing about African civilizations. Why can't you understand that? Do you feel guilty? Do you feel offended? Are you that fragile?
Central Africans actually had surgery, binary code, and fractal systems way before Europeans even thought of it. They also had astronomy and cities. The big issue here is that central African tribes were largely built on oral tradition. Since most of them didn't write anything down, we never actually knew what they were doing or what they knew until anthropologists decided to look into it. We're seeing now that they were a bit more advanced than previously thought, although still behind Eurasia in many ways. Also, they didn't stop technology after the ice age. They had iron tools before Europe.
+Shizz2333 Light years measure distance, not time.
Hey Cody, I got a question for you. What if the Vikings were successful in their colonization of the new world? I would love to see a video on this topic from you. I love your content and would be great full if you made a video on this topic. Have a nice day :)
time out, did Cody release a video at a reasonable hour?
Actually give some consideration for other time zones..
+Sir George Severn Damn Self centric people.
I see you yet again!
monkeytrollu The world doesn't have only one time zone.
Sir George Severn I know, I was agreeing with you.
monkeytrollu Of course. Why do we meet so often?
Why did Japan not claim Sahalkin/Ezro until the 19th century?
+Bob Miplace Nice profile picture
+Phoenix its from Dudeism page on Wikipedia I thought it was fair use
+Bob MiLaplace
Where is Sahalkin/Ezro? Google can't find it.
Cretium
My bad I mean Sakhalin it is now part of Russia. I always wondered why Japan did not take till 1845. They claimed Okinawa a lot earlier.
The Japanese traditionally lived in the more southern islands. Even in the Middle Ages, Hokkaido (northernmost of the big four islands) was not even ruled by the Japanese. It was the homeland of the Ainu, who were a less developed culture that alternatively traded and fought with the Japanese. Japan didn't really conquer Hokkaido until the 1700's or so, when they basically displaced the Ainu like Americans did the Natives. It was only then that they could look further north at Sakhalin, which they then quickly claimed.
They might have at least tried a bit sooner, had it not been for China. Ever since the Ming dynasty, the Chinese had considered the island to be within its sphere of influence, albeit less obviously than some other places. The islanders paid their taxes, so were likely protected indirectly by the larger Chinese military presence closer to Japan.
Why did I fail my Geography test
I expected a lot more racist comments on this video
Me to
+Cali Cpfoh Oh fuck you you stupid trailer trash hick
+Bulgarian Mapping go fuck yourself you sad peice if shit
Wow really nooooooooooooo it sad you have to make hate like this it is very very sad
grrr
Geographically speaking, where would be the best location for our first Mars colony?
+Chris Gaming Geo: of or relating to earth. Graphy: descriptive science.
There is no such thing as Martian geography.
+Joshua Berk *meography
Martiography?
Its called Areography.
+Chris Gaming Perhaps near the hotter regions of the Equator, to make up for the fact that it is further away from the Sun and is therefore colder.
Can the "Cloud O' Learnin" be in more episodes? I feel that it had a direct impact on my ability to learn from this video, oh and also a video about how geography played a part in the areas of India and south-east Asia would be awesome THANKS!
While i'm eating I saw this 1:23..........
WHY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Stop being so salty, embrace the tiny dicks the drawings have, EMBRACE THEM
+ChrisTheBO55 Same! That was fucking disgusting. I reported that part in the video ughh. Ruined my day for sure.
+Cala “Person” Boon It's just a drawing, so I don't think you can report it
+ChrisTheBO55 I kind of hope that you were eating o sausage! ;)
Never seen a dick before?
Can you do one on Central America? I feel as if Central America is often over looked as I never see many videos on it. It has a very interesting geography from El Salvador's volcanos, to Costa Ricas jungles. Thanks :)
In your video, you claim that those regions cut off from the rest of the world were "harmed by geography". I'd like to point out to you that lack of development in the sense of modern civilisation doesn't mean that a region has been harmed. It can be argued that a less developed region with less dense population affords the people living there with a much more sustainable lifestyle than what our western world deems 'progress'. Most of the comforts we take for granted (including my ability to comment on this video) have been bought at a great cost and disadvantage to other human communities and to nature.
That said, I applaud your efforts to use youtube to educate, and I thank you for that.
You say that but even then, central and southern African life was not at all sustainable. The idea of agriculture never reached or occurred to them until much time after many stable civilizations were built. And agricultural is one of the biggest factors in creating a sustainable society. It was much easier to die of hunger in central and Southern Africa than compared to West Africa, the Middle East, or Europe. The reason for this being that Central and Southern Africa were not at all sustainable.
+Dhindara Vrel Damn that's a pretty deep way of looking at it. We are slowly killing ourselves with our progressing technology (and might even destroy the planet before we can destroy ourselves), but the reality is that the agricultural society often thought of as 'underdeveloped' really would've been able to sustain itself much longer than modern society will. And the planet Earth would've been healthy and teeming. But then again, you and I would not be sitting here on our laptops in our warm, comfortable houses even watching this video so...
+Chris “Drako987123” R Actually that is not true at all. Agricultural societies in fact suffer more periods of famine than hunter-gatherer societies. This is in fact a very interesting paradox that Archaeologists have found out a long time ago. And if you analyse it carefully, it is not a paradox at all.
Why don't you lead by example and return to the neolithic state and forsake the comforts of "western progress"?
thank you. these are great, informative videos
I remember reading that China was in a unique position where it could have had an industrial revolution equal to that of England with its vast coal deposits, but a combination of culture/politics, technology and more importantly geography stopped them from being able to exploit the resource.
Damn that geography, Humanity's greatest enemy.
That's sad but true. The ancients had primitive steam engines but without the need the technology just was treated as a novelty toy. Humans most have a need and a desire to advance otherwise its reletively slow.
This video reminded me of Guns, Germs, and Steel a little bit. Keep up the good work!
+GeographyHub
Can you please do a video about how the continent of Australia was formed? I think it would be really interesting as I live there. You could even do a video for each other continent and how their landmasses formed. I hope you take my idea into consideration as it could bring you a lot more viewers.
Cheers,
Nato
+NatoCaloGaming Once there was Pangea. Now there isn't. The end.
Well, there was a Pangea, then after a long ass time, there wasn't a Pangea. Then after that, there was an Australia and a Europe and an Americas and an Africa (but we don't like to talk about that one)
Oh and Australia is politically not a continent, the main continent is Oceania
+NatoCaloGaming There was Pangaea, then Australia came out of Antarctica and moved to where it is now. The End.
Keep uploading!!!
Why did so many ethnicities come to the Balkans? (slavs, bulgars, thracians, greeks, illyrians, turks and eventually gypsies)
+Martin Penov It is just geographically placed like a road between Asia and Europe. I would like to see a video about it though :)
+Abdullah Alrasheed Yeah, I know. I just think it would be interesting if he made a video about it. And, of course, the comment section :)
+Martin Penov Just because the Balkans were the crossroads, that's basically where you end up if you wanted to go from Asia (where the steppes always seems to be manufacturing new ethnicities). It's either to the Balkans, or going into freezing cold Russia
Martin Penov No man I am with you, I want a video about it too.
+Martin Penov Because human migration. The Balkans are a nice place to settle in, and they are the easiest way between Asia and Europe.
Love it! Great vid!
What about its lack of navigable rivers?
Also hindered.
It's a shit ton of geographical factors.
animalia555 lack of? There's loads. In the tropical regions rivers are still some of the best ways to travel inland, much like the Amazon.
fatsamcastle One word: Rapids. While the rivers in Africa are long they have many obstacles to navigation in them.
animalia555 same with any river all over the world. They are obstacles but they aren't insurmountable. Rapids are nothing like deserts or mountain ranges.
fatsamcastle On the Nile "The rivers's flow is disturbed at several points by the Cataracts of the Nile, which are sections of faster-flowing water with many small islands, shallow water, and rocks, which form an obstacle to navigation by boats. The Sudd wetlands in Sudan also forms a formidable navigation obstacle and impede water flow, to the extent that Sudan had once attempted to canalize (the Jonglei Canal) to bypass the swamps"
Great Video. Do something about expeditioners. Like Alexander Von Humboldt for example
If humans came out of that region maybe it's underdeveloped because they never had a need for civilization (it's the human native habitat).
Not really, humans pretty much came out of ethiopia/sudan, which did have big civilizations.
He's talking about central africa, another story.
But yeah, it's a good theory to be honest.
This channel is great I love it
1,000 years is plenty of time to catch up and become advanced if you had contact with Iran and India.
asdfghjkl that's it was East Africa and they where perfectly developed untill a few hundred years ago
The Swahili did develop but most of their Bantu cousins didn't
They did they had forts and navies. Writing systems and other things but colonialism and the dominance of Europeans on the Indian trade happened.
I am surprised you did not mention disease. In the places that actually have winter, the amount of disease is much lower. This because it both kills off bugs (a major disease vector) and sends people into a voluntary quarantine once a year.
Or did you not consider that geographical enough?
I have often wondered about this question but your arguments don't hold much water. With all those forests and "isolation", why didn't they develop coastal trade and a mean sea faring trade system? They are resource Uber rich which should have lead to a vast and wealthy civilization that was centuries ahead of the resource poor Europeans that conquered the world. A major civilization sprang up in the desert around a moderately sized river in the north the was again resource poor. Maybe the lack of resource conflict created a subdued culture that didn't really need to modernize. They do say that necessity is the mother of invention. Like how Alaskan native invented what are basically the first sunglasses.
Hexx a small population of Africans colonised the world. Don't forget that.
Gunnar Power what do you mean resource rich?
There's vast reasons for not attaining civilisation. Everything from religion to tribal history, to the mere fact that why would they?
You can have costal trading, but to build civilisations you need agriculture.
Why didn't Australia have vast civilisations?
Civilisations aren't the answer, it's not the natural progression. It's just what happened to happen in some parts of the world.
Hexx what do you mean 'it was probably them'?
Gunnar Power because Everyone knows how to build complex structures or items when they're born.
I Vang they had plenty of time to develop cities they just didn't. Even the Inca and Mayan did with much less time. I am just curios about the reason that almost everybody else did but they and a few other peoples around the world just decided ehhh no thanks.
0:33 "wow that guys rich" said everybody.
There are some people in Central Africa who have lived in the same place with similar lifestyles since humanity first evolved.
Well we have those all around the world.
Ettina Kitten lol silly gay lover
Didn't the tsetse fly and sleeping sickness also have an effect on the settlement of cowherding peoples?
Why did Asia and Africa take early leads and then fall way behind Europe?
Not Africa
+Sir George Severn North Africa
More like Arabia.
So like morocco and egypt
No, the only lead Africa ever had was being part of an Arab nation.
Why did a lot of the Megafauna in N. America go extinct (Mammoths, American Lions, giant sloths, etc.), while many animals of similar size still exist in Africa?
Why are Americas city's declineing so fast
I don't know what you're talking NYC (where i live) has gotten much better since the turn of the century, and is only getting better
+WoWplayer527
That's mostly due to us having a much more diversified economy not based solely on industry. Whereas Detroit was pretty much entirely dependent on the automobile industry, so when that industry declined in America, so did the city.
+Ursus arctos Horribilis bingo
+Riley Da Bozz We suddenly no longer have the 'hip' and 'in-style' resources, like China has, what, 80% of all silicon and other rare resources in the world, which of course are the main driving point of modern society. Back in the 1800's though, we had the big steel plants, we had huge amounts of coal, and other major resources considered in-style back then.
edit: We also made our competition to good. When we rebuilt Japan and Germany (which of course are course are cornering the Car market) we built them with better and modernized car and steel plants. It was suddenly went from America having the best and cheapest goods to rebuilt Europe and Japan having it
The way I see it: the whole world is declining. Except Canada they will rule the world one day.
Can you make a video about what the earth would be like if Earth's land and water were reversed?
Why are there so much racist comments? He gives the valid reasons, and yet people still find a way to twist facts for their own racist beliefs.
Darwinism... Thats why. 🐵🦍👦
There is never one single reason. And ... geography can influence your genes
Lol the way you zoomed in on Belgium on "stronger outside powers"
Why is Canada still a country and not a state?
+Mochi Sandvich Because we don't like americans.
They're too fat.
+mo1264king Are you one of those Canadians that learned English as a second language? Because that is the wrong form of either "their, there and they're". The form you ought to have used, is "they're".
Because it's way too big to be a state.
That Leafs Fan Next Door It was a Hetalia joke. In it, everyone thinks Canada is just northern US.
WHO THINKS THAT!?!?
Because of the ports, harbors, anchors, banks, docks, flocks, stations, bays, and lots yeah
Geography determines destiny.
yep, exactly why the Native Americans were doomed against the Europeans or any civilization from the old world for that matter
Do a video on Idaho
Why was Japan able to avoid Western encroachment in the 18th and 19th centuries?
They're a mountainous island which really helps isolation.
+War Rock Plus, pre industrial revolution, Japan was savage. Samurai and isolation makes foreigners avoid you.
+War Rock nothing of actual worth in japan.
Because they were forced by westen nations (especially america who discretly said: hey buddy! Open your borders/markets or we will colonize you like china) So the emperor choose to industrilized the country (japan industrial revolution) for being in mesure to impose some respect with the western nations. It was an industrial revolution imposed by euro-americans at the time, and if they never done that, the japanease archipel were certainly largely being cut in different slices by portugal, france, uk, usa...
+Mark Ochoa what? Japan is worth VERY much. Stupid comment
The amazon is also covered in jungles (duh) but new researches show that before the arrival of Europeans there were large cities that traded with each other, but these large cities were abandoned once smallpox started decimating entire populations. The large cities split into smaller tribal groups isolated from each other.
Why is eastern europe so hostile
+Herberts Fimbauers Why won't you leave us alone?
? Who am i supose to leave alone ? im very confused in what your question is?
+Herberts Fimbauers History.
Pada Chssshhh Nice one!
+Herberts Fimbauers when you get fucked by the Russians, Austrians, Germans and Turks for a few hundreds of years you tend to be a little bitter
Nice video. Are you including civilizations of The Adam's Calender region in South Africa and Great Zimbabwe?
After my people arrived in South Africa we started to develop this hell hole and brought prosperity. Now it's been 20 years since we handed power to the blacks(in good faith) and w'ere already in our worst economical situation ever with more murders less employment and more corruption than this country ever had seen...but hey at least the black people can vote cause that's all that matter...
Btw South Africa is a Nation you must be referring to SOUTHERN Africa.
HAHAHAHA ever heard of Shaka Zulu? You clearly lack the most basic knowledge of the history of the African tribes that stayed here because this guy is South Africa's most respected black warrior yet he let his people starve to death whilst causing a murdering spree across the other smaller African tribes, but hey you're the expert in African politics XD
Let me teach you something today.
The Kaapse Boere (Cape Boers) left the cape colony when Britain annexed it and Natal. My forefathers with ox wagons traveling alone did not want to piss large African militaristic tribes off so they set up camps in uninhabited areas and if they needed save passage or land they would go and speak to the local chief directly to initiate peaceful trade. This went well up until Dingane murdered his brother Shaka and lured the Boers into a "trade" deal. After the Boers were in the tribal camp the zulu's murdered the Boers and then turned to kill all women and children! From that they forth war was inevitable with the local tribes. They ended up losing badly and we won decisively
If we are monsters then we were made that way by the African tribes and their treachery
ps South Africa still is at it's worst economical situation ever recorded and not because it's in a war or experiencing civil unrest or under sanctions like Apartheid(which had a much stronger economy)...no only because a black government is a fail government. I dare you to show me 1 example of a successful African nation since there are 54 countries there should be at least 1 African success story right?
In a lot of sources, they do say that the Afrikaner immigrants ended up taking over a lot of the land of the tribespeople who were living there at the time and enslaving some of them. However, the British didn't treat the natives very nicely either, all of them sort of just moved into the lands of the people already living there and killing them and turning their grazing lands into farmlands and stuff. well.
Look at how Rhodesia also fell into the shit once the whites were ousted out of power.
Also neocolonialism since they were governed by the European nations who exploited some of their resources so SURE countries like Rhodesia were set free but at that point other nations had been developed and Rhodesia was undeveloped and exploited so they had less them to develop and they continued to be exploited
Hahaha what a sad excuse! Have you ever heard of World War 1 and 2? yes the 2 wars nearly cost 100million lives and left countless European and Asian nations bankrupt and totally destroyed. There was nothing left just death and destruction yet today all these nations including Germany, Japan, China, Russia, Britain....they all are modern day super powers yet here in Africa decades after colonialism went away you still blame Europe and white people?
Hahaha face it Africa is incapable of developing on it's own. It always has been and always will be!
Please do a video on the Taklamakan desert.
How did germany almost take over the world twice
+JAmes STar This is more History than Geography
+JAmes STar The same reason why Central Africa is so undeveloped ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
+JAmes STar When this question comes up, one of the first things many people talk about is usually German technology between the end of the 19th and the start of the 20th century. But I am sure, that that alone cannot be the whole answer.
+JAmes STar "We" did almost take over the world twice?? Maybe europe, but not the world
+JAmes STar Germany only attempted trying to take over the world once. The other time was less about conquest and more about influence/ righting a wrong (with another wrong)
The reason central Africa was undeveloped is the same reason ppl play only Pangea in Multiplayer civ games.
we wuz kings
+Tommy Lowe N SHIET
still poor
We wuz kangz an queefs
WE WUZ KANGS N SHIIIII
hermanPla er du dansk?
hey cody? for a joke, you should make the globe on your channel avatar hold the atlas upside down :P
BUT WE WUZ KANGS AND SHEEEEEEEEIT
Oh look, a series he actually followed up on
You copy alternatehistoryhub!!
+derpy derp Derpy derp
Question: I thought the Kingdom of Kongo was a thing, but according to this video, the area is unfit for a kingdom-like entity to exist.
WE WUZ KANGZ N SHIEEEEET
David Bednarczyk WEZ DA FOREAL HEBREWZ AND DA FOREAL EGYPTIANZ. KANGS N SHIET
How come you havent uploaded in ages?
because the average IQ is in the 70`s
that's just plain wrong. racist stupidity.
"Simply being cut off from the main trade routes of Eurasia, was enough to harm central Africa, like on Facebook..." xD
WE WUZ KANGZ N SHIT
If we're 350 years from being able to travel the galaxy and 50 years from settling on mars and 20 years from developing the first invisible cloak, what makes you think a planet out there hasn't beaten us to it already?
Europe was civilized in its own way before the Romans
Bullshit. It was a backwards hellhole
right, agricultural tribes with iron tools, backwards as fuck...
+Benjamin Adams You can't really call it their "own way". Agriculture and metallurgy spread to europe in the bronze age through trade with various cultures from the middle east and anatolia. Before that, they were just hunter-gatherers.
the germanic people had better iron than anyone else of the time
and what time was that?
El Dorado is a myth based on drawing Spaniards to 'The New World', not African?
you don't think biological differences between peoples could have had anything to do with Africa's underdevelopment?
+B.C Drisk not responding to trolls, people who say "that's racist", or SHOUTY ALL CAPS MESSAGES. google amren
+B.C Drisk I think their culture is more to blame, low level of solidarity and morals, laziness, lack of innovation and corruption is rampant there.
Mrgravitymario then why is poverty and a host of other bad things found pretty much wherever sub-Saharan Africans are?
+B.C Drisk Because European Imperialism's only goal was to extract resources from it's colonies to fuel their empires. Nothing was given to Africa in terms of infrastructure or institutions except education for the elite. Europeans drew arbitrary borders when fighting over land and basically said, "well, see yah!" and left nations that had no ability technologically, logistically, or economically to create modern nation states from the state many former colonies were in. And mind you that many of these nations are less than 40 years old, and many are experiencing rapid economic growth despite the challenges. Before European Imperialism Sub-Sharan Africa had various kingdoms across Western Africa that had contact with Ancient Carthage, and empires such as Mali and Shonghi came to be in the late middle ages. The Eastern of Africa coast had various city states that grew rich trading with Islamic empires, India, and even China. Ethiopia and Axum were both powerful kingdoms in Classical Antiquity not to mention the former later fought off European Imperialists.
Your question presupposes a modern racist attitude of Eurocentric historians. I could ask you in the 12th century why Europe was far behind economically, technologically, and especially in terms of standard of living and literacy compared to the Song dynasty in China.
The JuanTrueKaiser Then explain Ethiopia's poverty and South Africa's relative wealth.
Keep in mind Ethiopia was never colonized and south Africa was the last to be decolonized.
Explain the wealth that was in Africa during colonial times but vanished after. Along with the fact that the empires did in fact build several railways, water systems, and most of these sub-Saharan African civilizations didn't invent the wheel.
Keep in mind I said sub-Saharan i.e Africans and their descendants in North America, South America, Europe, and the Caribbean.
Oh, if Colonialism is so bad then why is eastern Europe and Ireland so wealthy compared to much of Africa?
Agriculture is the way too make a civilization advance. When fertilizers where invented the world changed drastically.
but yet Blacks in America talk about there all kings and queens in the home land and I laugh at that idea
Did you even watch the video?
I take it you didn't watch the video before this comment?
L didn't even watch the video
The Zulu. Songhai. Ethiopia. West Africa. All kingdoms of considerable wealth and power. What are you talking about?
Adam Weishaupt I wouldn't call the Zulu's that powerful, they were after all essentially a small kingdom of 250,000 people maximum. Their claim to fame is more how quickly they grew from a tribe of some 800 and their badass battles with the British. But I agree with Songhai and Ethiopia, both polities with millions of people, grand wealth, and power.
You missed how a nomadic lifestyle is more or less required because you could not farm a single are for too long until the weather changed and it became barren. It is also a reason why national borders dont work well since people need to cross or otherwise move around all the time.
iq
no. please don't tell me your worldview relies on racist pseudo-science of all things.
@@skeletorsnan8161 youre wrong. This is just a cope to cover for stupid egalitarianism. There are genetic differences between the races that cause them to have behaviors conducive to creating advanced civilization
@@aspiringretard proof?
@@skeletorsnan8161 There is a book called the "Bell Curve" that goes into how there are differences in races and how they affect society. You will probably just dismiss due to hubris but the differences between race and intelligence have been studied for more than 300 years
@@skeletorsnan8161 I'm not racist, it is just a fact. Iq is heavily effected by the ecology. Africans just adapted to it and are still adapted to it. They did not need to be inventive to survive in Africa and did not have to deal with many invasions or outsiders like Europeans until recently. You can come up with a whole lot of excuses but just be honest with yourself why is that all African nations are underdeveloped? And countries with African majorities so underdeveloped? Look at Haiti and the Dominican republic. Look at south Africa once Blacks gained political dominance. Hell even look at black neighborhoods in the US, and how blacks are doing in other developed countries like the UK. Just be honest and keep an open mind when looking at the data and the reason is obvious. The idea of the human brain being unaffected by thousands of years of environmental pressures is silly. If the reason for why African nations are doing so bad is because of colonization then why are Asian countries doing better even though they too suffered from colonization. Hell, Japan was nuked and Germany was pretty much destroyed in the second world war and yet now they are ahead of everyone else in term HDI.
Why was Slovenia moved after Yugoslavia broke apart from being in-between Croatia and Hungary to ontop of Italy?
Man I Love These Vidoes, Keep Em Coming! Or Else,
Central Africa kinda makes sense, but in the case of Southern Africa, alot of people forget that the "bantu" groups that migrated down there did so only a few centuries ago, and by a few centuries, we are talking so recent that this was not long before the Western Europeans began settling the cape. Compare that to the island of Britain where civilization started around Roman times, but there were a decent number of people settled there for at least 10k years. It takes a while for a people to settle down and to develop civilizations. They probably could if the Europeans did not invade Southern Africa when they did.
I agree with you & besides Madagascar wasn't even discovered by Africans but instead by explorers from Borneo
Africa where amongst the first to work with iron... true story.
The sand was so sandy that even camels would run away
Hey Kody how about one on the British Colonies that didn't join the American Revolution and later became Canada?
Do a video about Norway's geography
How does China and India's geographic location play as an advantage as for development?
Been nearly two months, and still no new vid.
what makes the geography of Turkey so good for creating empires like empires such as the byzantines to the Seljuk to the ottomans no land created so many empires in such a short time.
Why Portugal being such small country formed an HUGE empire?
Why did Roman Empire expanded so quickly?
Oh and the plants were either lethal or concealed a lethal animal
I feel like Randy on Wheel of Fortune
Is no one else going to question what is happening in the picture at 0:51?
Can you do a video about Scandinavia?
Africa is in a great location actually