>>442877there is fact in their yes, but its his conclusions that are just retarded
he sprinkles observation and a few facts throughout his own opinion where he attempts to create a 'unified theory of history' build around geography only (he's a geographer, nt a historian so so wonder) but it falls apart if you bother to even do basic research outside of the pop-historical liberal European narrative
he just outright ignores so much and make huge assumptions its not even worth reading since most of his conclusions are just wrong (and proven so by modern Archaeology) it seems like he is relying on 19th century history books with his own geographic knowledge layered about
obviously geography is important, but its not everything
like I said, good for snarky dinner conversation at the country club and nothing more
as well saying primitive man was more intelligent is just wrong, he was simply more generalized and had to be good in a bunch of areas, or in the case of the middle ages, Renaissance men had to be more self reliant to get things done (I'd say these people were at the sweet spot for intelligence where necessity and luxury are balanced enough to create amazing innovation)
now people are more specialized so while someone could be top tier in building microchips and computer engineering, but completely useless in everything else
