>>10198690>All great civilizations (Sumerian, Greek, etc.) had something to trade/build - which you can't do without resources.Yet apart from fertile land, the Sumerians had almost no natural resources. Not even metals within easy reach.
And Greece had the opposite problem. They had *some* natural resources, but the land they inhabited was rough and hilly. Crete actually is a healthy medium. Close to natural resources from all of the Mediterranean world (silver from the Balkans, Amber coming down from the north, gold from Egypt, and copper and ivoury from the Levant and Canaan). And they had decent farmland as well.
>Were they advanced enough to have a maritime network so good that the Greeks merely coopted it once Crete fell? No because they were largely land locked. But they did build great cities and once rivaled both the Egyptian and Hittite Empires.
>They are to Romans as the English are to Americans.What do you make of the apparent discrepancy in languages? Mycenaean is essentially Greek but Minoan is a linguistic isolate. Any speculation that they were Hurrian is speculation based on a few phonetically preserved words and toponyms.
>>10198695>Trade anon. No great nation can be built without trade.Exactly. This is why Crete was so well situated. They were the crossroads of the mainland European civilizations and the Old Bronze Age civilizations. Europe had more resources than the Middle East and they were happy to trade for it.
