Best place ever to maintain a civilization?

[riggerrob]

The Annapolis Valley of Nova Scotia. The valley has only two entrances at the east and west ends. Both are good fishing ports with an abundance of lobster in the Bay of Fundy and only a few days sailing from the Grand Banks.
The valley floor is mostly flat and the damper parts were drained by Acadian farmers, producing soil fertile enough to grow vegetables, corn and export tobacco. Fruit orchards dot the slopes. The valley is well-watered. Several of those rivers can be harnessed to turn grist mills. Food supply is varied and reliable. Winters can be snowy, which leads to cabin-fever which encourages small manufacturing.
The west end (at Digby) is easily defensible. The border is the steep, forested North Mountain ridge. A similar, wider plateau defends the southern approaches. It is a long walk from the Atlantic Ocean. Only a few rivers - only navigable by canoe - arrive from the South. To the East are plenty of swamps, low-lying farmland and access to the Bay of Fundy.
Harbours are deep enough for ocean-going vessels.

 

[Cheer]

I'd second the Japan vote. The Main Island generally has a nice climate for crops and comfortable living, it has never been successfully invaded due to being a giant island, it has easy contact with what is probably 9/10 times going to be the second best place to raise a civilization, it has silver for trading/currency forming, and it has several areas to expand to and consolidate Pacific trade from, namely Hokkaido, Taiwan, and the tiny Pacific islands nearby. It's the prime spot. Defensible, abundant, and prime for beneficial contact with the outside world.

 

[Padilla]

Perhaps this is ASB, but ok.

We all know the importance of geography on the history and progress of a nation, If you could choose a place (regardless of size, as long as it makes sense) to permanently settle a civilization, where would it be? You might simply think of one of the Cradles of Civilization, but I don't think places like Mesopotamia are particularly safe from invaders and Egypt might not be so great on the long run.

Discount the real life inhabitants of this region and even if everything of butterflied away, consider some "obvious" foreign problems that could come, like steppe nomads and etc.

Maintaining a civilization is not the same as being conquered.Ancient Egypt had been conquered by multiple foreign powers but it remained the same civilization for 3000 years. The same could be argue with China after the Mongol conquest.China never really stopped being the same civilization even if the emperor was of Mongol stock afterwards.
So I would argue that high population+ a high level of sophistication is the best way of maintaining a civilization and for those conditions China would probably be my pick

 

[pa_dutch]

There's one historically time-tested region overlooked in this thread: Tamil Nadu. Almost every great ancient empire to arise on the Indian Subcontinent failed to take the Tamils, and they had no serious outside threats until the Europeans showed up. Not only did the Tamils maintain cohesive cultural continuity since ancient times until today, the dynasties that arose from them lasted for over a thousand and five hundred years (even longer in the case of the Pandyas). The Tamils also had a good position to control the lucrative trade routes of the Indian Ocean, recieving business from as far as Rome and China and expanding influence as far as Bangladesh, Thailand, Indonesia, and the Maldives.

 

[Jiraiyathegallant]

Australia has the same problem as the Americas in that it lacks animals to domesticate and I don't think it has many good crop plants either. On top of that Australian soil is pretty poor in nutrients and relies a lot on fertilizers.

Still too isolated. The part of Asia they were near was pretty isolated themselves. At best they would have to wait for the age of sail for contact to trickle in.

I agree that this is horribly unlikely, hence why it and nothing similar happened OTL. However, the OP says “maintain” a civilization and to basically ignore the original ones, so I’m assuming some crazy luck and competence for the aboriginals with things to the effect of developing what little agricultural potential they have ten thousand years ago and spreading it as far as they can, building ships that can make it to New Guinea and taking anything useable back home a few thousand years back, ships full of livestock and crops getting swept to Australia thousands of years ago, etc...

Once they actually get set up Australia could be great for thousands of years.

 

[123456789blaaa]

The Central Valley of California. Massive agricultural productivity, isolated by mountains and deserts from potential invaders in all directions except north. It's unlikely that any crop package that thrives in the Valley will thrive in in the Pacific Northwest, meaning there likely won't be hordes of invaders even in that direction. Even seaborne invasion would be very difficult given that there aren't favorable places for littoral civilization for for a thousand miles (the Salish Sea is the only candidate) and San Francisco Bay wasn't discovered for a hundred years after Europeans began sailing by due to fog. Civilization will more likely be clustered on the east side of the Valley away from the sea.

If there had been some easy native domesticates in California we could have seen a really weird civilization arise there, with only the slightest trickle of influence from Mesoamerica.

Why do you think it would be "weird"?

 

[Burton K Wheeler]

Why do you think it would be "weird"?

Weird meaning unique, because it would be isolated from the rest of the world.

 

[wtw]

I am going to agree with those saying population is key. You have enough people that is a resource in and of itself worth having, China, India and now several other locations, Nigeria, the US East Coast, a good chunk of Europe, Java they have population that will be hard, not impossible, but hard to completely destroy

 

[Arkenfolm]

I'd say the Lower Mississippi area, basically the states of Louisiana, Arkansas, Mississippi, Tennessee, Kentucky, Missouri, extending a bit into Alabama, east Texas, and along the Ohio River. No surprise it was a center of plant domestication IOTL. Although the climate can get a bit uncomfortable in the summer, the land is very fertile and there's quite a bit of resources. The rivers allow for easy navigation and trade, and links to the Gulf would allow for extensive trade with Mesoamerica.

Biggest problem is I imagine this hypothetical civilisation as frequently being invaded and ruled by outsiders, probably from the Great Lakes region but also perhaps from the Great Plains (assuming they have horses/camels/whatever to ride). One advantage is that the area is heavily forested which would discourage nomad penetration too far inward. Biggest natural hazards would be earthquakes which happen infrequently meaning preparedness is likely to be low and of course tornadoes.

While Cahokia obviously gets a lot of attention, the best site is probably somewhere along the Tennessee River which as noted, is more removed from the threat of nomads from the Plains and also closer to the central area of the civilisation rather than Cahokia would be nearer to the fringe. The Paducah, KY area would be pretty nice for a capital, maybe also the Muscle Shoals, AL area which is at a strategic point along the Tennessee River and is near important sources of iron.

I agree that this is horribly unlikely, hence why it and nothing similar happened OTL. However, the OP says “maintain” a civilization and to basically ignore the original ones, so I’m assuming some crazy luck and competence for the aboriginals with things to the effect of developing what little agricultural potential they have ten thousand years ago and spreading it as far as they can, building ships that can make it to New Guinea and taking anything useable back home a few thousand years back, ships full of livestock and crops getting swept to Australia thousands of years ago, etc...

Once they actually get set up Australia could be great for thousands of years.

No, it's pretty terrible. It's isolated, so there's less trade and contact with the outside world--this is part of the reason why Australian Aboriginal civilisation never took off IOTL, because innovations spread very slowly into Australia. Then the land itself, which is horribly prone to drought, and indeed, most of the continent is a desert. The desert dominates the continent and would hinder trade links between the southeast, southwest, and north of the continent. The soil ranges from mediocre to some of the least fertile soils on Earth. There's a giant mountain range in the east (Great Dividing Range) which would also serve to hinder trade and the development of civilisations.

Even if you have a Lands of Red and Gold-style agricultural package getting developed (which is naturally more suited to Australia's conditions), I still wouldn't consider Australia to be a very good place for civilisation.

 

[XFE]

Thoughts on a civilization upon the Zhujiang, around modern Guangdong and Guangxi? It can support a fairly large population, has a fairly long coasts and the Zhujiang itself can link city states together. It's also sufficiently far south to contact and trade with Southeast Asian civilizations--or even assimilate them. With several centuries, an overseas route to India--or at least Malacca could even be possible. Defensively, the Yangtze is a good defense, and could become the second core of a Zhujiang nation should such a polity emerge; but so is the jungle terrain of southern China and the Nanling mountains: The Qin conquest had to struggle with logistics in southern China. Modern Guangdong being the most populous and wealthiest of China's provinces should give us a basis of how such a civilization might develop.

 

[chr92]

The Mediterranean has been so productive ttl I'd look there first. Spain has mineral resources, access to two separate seas, and some protection in the Pyrenees. In the beginning, anyway, southern and/or eastern Spain would be my choice. And there should be offshoots in southern France or elsewhere.

 

[AnonymousSauce]

I'd say the Lower Mississippi area, basically the states of Louisiana, Arkansas, Mississippi, Tennessee, Kentucky, Missouri, extending a bit into Alabama, east Texas, and along the Ohio River. No surprise it was a center of plant domestication IOTL. Although the climate can get a bit uncomfortable in the summer, the land is very fertile and there's quite a bit of resources. The rivers allow for easy navigation and trade, and links to the Gulf would allow for extensive trade with Mesoamerica.

Biggest problem is I imagine this hypothetical civilisation as frequently being invaded and ruled by outsiders, probably from the Great Lakes region but also perhaps from the Great Plains (assuming they have horses/camels/whatever to ride). One advantage is that the area is heavily forested which would discourage nomad penetration too far inward. Biggest natural hazards would be earthquakes which happen infrequently meaning preparedness is likely to be low and of course tornadoes.

I suspect that eventually, the Lower Mississippi and the Great Lakes basins would end up united by one civilization, forming a North China Plain on steroids.

 

[inawarminister]

Thoughts on a civilization upon the Zhujiang, around modern Guangdong and Guangxi? It can support a fairly large population, has a fairly long coasts and the Zhujiang itself can link city states together. It's also sufficiently far south to contact and trade with Southeast Asian civilizations--or even assimilate them. With several centuries, an overseas route to India--or at least Malacca could even be possible. Defensively, the Yangtze is a good defense, and could become the second core of a Zhujiang nation should such a polity emerge; but so is the jungle terrain of southern China and the Nanling mountains: The Qin conquest had to struggle with logistics in southern China. Modern Guangdong being the most populous and wealthiest of China's provinces should give us a basis of how such a civilization might develop.

That would probably needs a Nanyue state to be centralised and dominant enough by around 500BCE-200BCE to counter/defeat any attempt by the Qin/Han to move south of Yangtze, ala the Koreans and the Han River.
Hmm, I wonder how that civilization would look like.
If its stable enough, we would avert Thailand too. Vietnam would probably not happen (going to be inside the Nanyue super-state) which could mean the Champa are safe - too far from the central realm of Guangxi I think.

 

[Infinity]

The ideal location is lower in latitude the farther back in time you go. If the time period is more than 4,000 years ago, I choose Crete. Second choice is the Indus valley. The Hindu religion grew faster and earlier than other religions. Buddhism is a direct result of Hinduism, and other contemporary religions were arguably influenced by Hinduism. Therefore, the Indus Valley was the most successful core, spreading its ideas to the most consistently densely populated civilizations. In terms of numbers, and cohesion, the Indus Valley seems to be the strongest seed.

Although, if it can be determined where the origin of the Indo-Aryan language family is, this would be a decisive factor in choosing the best starting location for civilization. Hence why Crete was mentioned. Additionally, the sea faring prowess and architecture of the Minoans was particularly remarkable. They were millenia ahead of their time. Had there been a great rival to the Minoans, they would have been forced to become a great empire in self defense.

 

[Alex Zetsu]

There's one historically time-tested region overlooked in this thread: Tamil Nadu. Almost every great ancient empire to arise on the Indian Subcontinent failed to take the Tamils, and they had no serious outside threats until the Europeans showed up. Not only did the Tamils maintain cohesive cultural continuity since ancient times until today, the dynasties that arose from them lasted for over a thousand and five hundred years (even longer in the case of the Pandyas). The Tamils also had a good position to control the lucrative trade routes of the Indian Ocean, recieving business from as far as Rome and China and expanding influence as far as Bangladesh, Thailand, Indonesia, and the Maldives.

I think the OP wanted idea place for a civilization, not just invasion proof. That means agricultural output needs to be a must regardless of the other good stuff.