its lolzy IQmos dont bring this up, sorta kills their idea that IQ is everything to build great civs

western euros had ZERO great civs pre 1500ad, ancient greeks prob didnt even know who these benchods weere, just barbarian losers (similar to how birdshits think of NOWAGS today)

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5894355&forum_id=2…id#50074822)

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5894355&forum_id=2…id#50074850)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nominal)_per_capita

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5894355&forum_id=2…id#50074908)

and Iceland was POOR as furk for 99% of human history, its a relatively new thing it's considerd "rich"

-----

Yes—by European historical standards, Iceland was poor for most of its history, though “poor” needs some qualification.

Settlement (after ~870): Iceland was a difficult place to live. There was no native agriculture base, forests were rapidly depleted, the growing season was short, and people depended heavily on sheep, cattle, fishing, and imported goods.

Medieval Iceland: It wasn't destitute. Some farmers could be quite prosperous, and Iceland produced valuable exports such as wool and dried fish. But average living standards were probably below those of the more productive agricultural regions of Western Europe.

1300s–1800s: Conditions generally deteriorated. The Little Ice Age, volcanic eruptions, epidemics, famine, and harsh climate repeatedly hit the population. Iceland was also economically constrained under Danish rule.

1800s: Iceland remained one of Europe's poorer societies. Population growth was slow and periodic famines occurred.

Late 19th/early 20th century: This is when the transformation really accelerated. Commercial fishing, better transportation, trade, mechanization, and eventually industrialization dramatically raised incomes.

Today: Iceland is among the world's richest countries.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5894355&forum_id=2…id#50074991)

it was a by product of the british empire, without the empire AUS becomes nothing. do u morons really think if u had put these brit criminals there BY THEMSELVES and then had NO support or connection at all to british empire they wld have done this? ROFL u are retarded, they wld have ended up niggas like the abiriginals

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5894355&forum_id=2…id#50075029)

Makes a lot of sense that Rome fought a decade long war to conquer it, incorporated it, taxed it, built cities and roads throughout it, stationed major armies along its frontier, and retained it for centuries, but ACKTUALLY thought it was worthless, because late Roman foederati arrangements hundreds of years later.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5894355&forum_id=2…id#50074828)

*waits for nsam to bring up the mouldboard plow thinking that means most of france was impenetrable heavy clay*

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5894355&forum_id=2…id#50075405)