>>111801109>You're saying they couldn't feed themselvesCan people in infertile lands feed themselves? Can infertile lands feed a kingdom? Tell me again, how important was farming in general for the formation of any sort of civilization?
>That is not said anywhereOh look it's not said anywhere that the characters shit and piss, I guess that means they don't right? I mean you need to SPELL it out, maybe do some drawings of it as well, otherwise it didn't happen right?
>all those landscapes have supported large human populations in real history.Many of them relying specifically on trading. Relying A LOT on trading. And it's one thing to have an infertile land for ever 2 fertile ones or 3 mildly fertile ones, but fucking 3?
>It went through multiple such extended famines in its history.That is obvious, now tell me how often did France wage war due to need for land?
>You weren't arguing for a situation like this beforeBecause it's IMPLIED I think everyone knows that when you have even MILDLY fertile lands, from time to time, there's a big famine. What helps sustain said land is usually trading, sometimes within the country, sometimes external, and if 3 out of the 2 countries you have contact with are also unable to trade, things get VERY desperate. Wars due to scarcity of resources is incredibly common.
>You were arguing that these nations couldn't sustain themselvesNot on the long term. A country's health cannot be measured in "7 years", it's measured in centuries, 3 infertile countries do not have the necessary resources to sustain themselves in the long term, they won't be able to regrow the lost population, it'll be a downward spiral. Why do I NEED to say something like this?
