Most Important and Influential River in Human History?

[The Archregimancy]

The Tigris-Euphrates drainage basin, the Nile, the Yellow, the Ganges, and maybe the Indus (depending on your opinions of Harappan civilisation).

Everything else is quibbling over the status of river systems which, while no doubt important in their own way, have played a secondary role role over the broad sweep of human history.

And Neo Prutenia is in de Nile; though better that, I suppose, than in Seine. I'd have written a longer point by point deconstruction of his post, but given how busy I am right now, I've sacrificed my usual rigorous standards for the sake of two cheap puns, one of which I wasn't even the first person to use.

[Napkiraly]

Oh god...

In my country there is problem. And that problem is a bucking horse.

That horse being the ancestor maternally and paternally of Boltok.

[Old Tyrannia]

The Nile. Ancient Egypt, one of the most significant civilizations in world history, existed purely becsuse of it.

You can say the same thing about the Tigris-Euphrates river system and Mesopotamia.

That's true, but the Tigris and the Euphrates are separate rivers, and ancient Egypt outlasted the Mesopotamian civilizations so it had a larger influence on the rest of world history. Not to mention the Nile played a significant role in the European exploration of Africa and colonization.

[Neo Prutenia]

And Neo Prutenia is in de Nile; though better that, I suppose, than in Seine. I'd have written a longer point by point deconstruction of his post, but given how busy I am right now, I've sacrificed my usual rigorous standards for the sake of two cheap puns, one of which I wasn't even the first person to use.

I wouldn't call them cheap, they are quite germane. Still, puns are the second lowest form of humour. I would also advise you to spare yourself the effort and skip on "point by point deconstruction" of my post, unless it's for the sake of others, for a very simple reason. I'm pretty much indifferent to (any) history in the pre-Enlightenment era. Before the Enlightenment we only had a mostly cosmetic difference in culture, awareness, and civilisation. That movement was the pivotal change in the course of human history, the one that established all guiding principles of today and shattered previous ways of thinking (to name a few examples - secularism, the modern nation state, ideologies, the establishment of the scientific method as basic principle in research and, well, science, etc). I don't see any particular differences in any culture or even oikumene beyond cosmetic in the period prior that that event.

Now, there were proto-Enlightenment periods before the one we know, but they never took off. The Renaissance as an example, or the pre-Mongol invasion period in Islamic history. Nevertheless, this pivotal moment happened in Europe first, and it coincided with arguably the first time we can talk about "world" history, since the same Europe had linked the entire world together roughly at the same time, mostly due to their colonial efforts in the western hemisphere and their mercantile enterprises in the eastern hemisphere. I think it's fair to assume that we can't talk about either "world" or "human" history before that point, the time the actual world, or the entirety of (contemporary) mankind had established a common "present", that is started reliably communicating on a global, general level. So, any history before that point, is in my (never) humble opinion neither world history nor human history, only localised history. I'm not saying it isn't important, or irrelevant (I'm just personally mostly indifferent), but we can't take it into the equation. Or at least I won't.

While some might get from my post that I have a eurocentric view or regard history through the lens of European history, this is not the case. I merely equate (most) relevant history, that is world history or human history to "The time span from first reliable global communication to now", which we can assume to be 400 to 500 years. Yes, this means that the European nations can a lionshare of attention in my opinion, but they just had luck. Looking at the results, however, it's those values which formed in that period which were exported throughout the whole world, and it was done by the people who connected the entire world into one community, so I, and with that I mean just I personally, equate "most important/influential river in human history" to most relevant European river in the last 400 to 500 years, which I argue to be the Rhine river. And this is just a "river". The Atlantic and Indian oceans are way more important to world history than just one river.

Also, wine. I'm sorry, but the Grapes beat Wheat. The Nile is fine and dandy, but neither side of that river has added any meaningful wine to the palette. What's the point in even having history and civilisation if we don't get wine out of it?

[Stern des Meeres]

I'd have to say the Tigris and Euphrates together. They made Mesopotamia ideal for the world's first civilizations to arise.

[Forsher]

Yes, it's a bit random, but it's NSG. So, what was it? The most important and influential river to homo sapiens' history, development and everything about them. Consider all factors; environmental, scientific, war, etc. However, only consider fairly direct effects; no pulling some prehistoric river out of your ass saying without it reptiles and therefore humans would never have been, or something like that.

Here's a list of rivers which I'm fairly sure will make it to the top:

Tigris
Euphrates
Rhine
Danube
Nile
Yangtze
Yellow
Ganges
Indus

I won't be choosing one, merely discussing, by the way. Poll will be up after there's an idea of the main candidates, which I am guessing will be those 9, plus an "Other" option, because the Po or the Rhone or the Mississippi and the Amazon probably aren't quite as important.

What of the Thames? I suggest entirely because of its relevance to London and the wider impact London has had (generally more directly linked with) on the world today. There's probably a way to express the following in river puns but waterever (very poor I know). Probably something of a dark horse trying to break into the old boys' club though here.

However, my initial instinct was the Tigris-Euphrates although expressed in terms of "that one in Mesopotamia".

[Risottia]

Tigris
Euphrates
Rhine
Danube
Nile
Yangtze
Yellow
Ganges
Indus

No Tiber and you're using the Latin alphabet.
No Volga and you're not speaking German.

Ferchrissake.

Anyway, should I select just one, my vote would go to the Tigris-Euphrates.

[The Archregimancy]

Also, wine. I'm sorry, but the Grapes beat Wheat. The Nile is fine and dandy, but neither side of that river has added any meaningful wine to the palette. What's the point in even having history and civilisation if we don't get wine out of it?

I enjoy a good bottle of German Riesling - I'm particularly fond of Ürziger Würzgarten (though strictly speaking that's a wine from a Rhine tributary, of course) - but if wine is seriously one of your primary criteria, then the Rhone (including the Saône), Garonne, and Loire are far more significant than the Rhine ever has been.

Not least because as good as German white wine undoubtedly can be, Germany has traditionally struggled to produce a half-decent red. Climate change does seem to be helping there, but I'm not sure that helping the Rhine to finally produce a half-decent red wine after 1800 years of struggle is a decent argument in favour of increasing carbon emissions.


As to the Nile....

Wine played an important role in ancient Egyptian ceremonial life. A thriving royal winemaking industry was established in the Nile Delta following the introduction of grape cultivation from the Levant to Egypt c. 3000 BCE. The industry was most likely the result of trade between Egypt and Canaan during the Early Bronze Age, commencing from at least the Third Dynasty (2650–2575 BCE), the beginning of the Old Kingdom period (2650–2152 BCE). Winemaking scenes on tomb walls, and the offering lists that accompanied them, included wine that was definitely produced in the deltaic vineyards. By the end of the Old Kingdom, five wines, all probably produced in the Delta, constitute a canonical set of provisions, or fixed "menu," for the afterlife.

Wine in ancient Egypt was predominantly red; however, a recent discovery has revealed the first evidence of white wine there. Residue from five clay amphoras from Pharaoh Tutankhamun's tomb yielded traces of white wine. Finds in nearby containers led the same study to establish that Shedeh, the most precious drink in ancient Egypt, was made from red grapes, not pomegranates as previously thought.

As with much of the ancient Middle East, Egypt's lower classes preferred beer as a daily drink rather than wine, a taste likely inherited from the Sumerians. However, wine was well-known, especially near the Mediterranean coast, and figures prominently in the ritual life of the Jewish people, going back to the earliest known records of the faith. The Tanakh mentions it prominently in many locations as both a boon and a curse, and wine drunkenness serves as a major theme in a number of Bible stories.

So you appear to be arguing for some sort of primacy of either importance and or quality for the post-medieval Rhine in wine culture. Quality is no doubt subjective, but in terms of importance, A) the Rhine isn't even the most important wine-growing riverine region in Europe (though I wouldn't deny that it's an important region) and B) it was the Romans who established wine production in the Rhine, expanding wine from its pre-Roman Eastern Mediterranean base.

Under the circumstances, the Nile, the eastern Mediterranean, and the Black Sea were far more significant to the overall history of viniculture than the post-medieval Rhine.

While some might get from my post that I have a eurocentric view or regard history through the lens of European history, this is not the case. I merely equate (most) relevant history, that is world history or human history to "The time span from first reliable global communication to now", which we can assume to be 400 to 500 years.

Not a helpful position to take in opposition to a professional archaeologist currently running fieldwork on a World Heritage Site in the Middle East, but suit yourself.

[Aquafireland]

Misissipi River.

[Risottia]

Misissipi River.

Doesn't even exist.

[Bezombia]

Misissipi River.

Doesn't even exist.

Well it says that you don't exist.

[Risottia]

Doesn't even exist.

Well it says that you don't exist.

"It" can't say anything as it doesn't exist.
There's no river called "Misissipi". Fact.

[Ifreann]

All are inferior to the Liffey.

[Bezombia]

Well it says that you don't exist.

"It" can't say anything as it doesn't exist.
There's no river called "Misissipi". Fact.

Mrs. Ipi is dissapoint!

[Sociobiology]

I'd have to say the Tigris and Euphrates together. They made Mesopotamia ideal for the world's first civilizations to arise.

actually the first "civilization" was likely along the Indus river, which is better for a civilization anyway being far less chaotic and much better for farming.
see Mehrgarh and the Indus river valley civilization.

[Holy Patrician States]

Le Rhin.

[Neo Prutenia]

@the Archregimancy

1) On the topic of wine

I appreciate that you humour me, and I sincerely wasn't aware of any sort of viticulture being present in Ancient Egypt. So, I admit being at fault in that regard. I assume the rise of Islam is the cause of the decline of Egyptian wine then?

Nevertheless, wine is just a personal preference. I implied alcohol having plaid an important role in the establishment of human communities. Likewise, I never claimed that Rhenish wine was the best, although it's the one I'm most fond of, since I grew up with it. It's not my favourite either.

2) On the topic of human/world history

That is sadly true, but don't be offended by my, shall we call it "result-oriented" position. Again, I do not deny the contributions and/or importance of other rivers, or in broader terms, other cultures. I'm merely operating under parametres given by the OP, or rather my interpretation of it. I did specify how I interpreted "human history" (a rather vague, unspecified term to be frank) and why I interpreted it as such, so I think my position is valid.

For me, that would be the point where for the first time we have an established world community, which is rather recent. Once we have an operational definition relevant for the whole of humanity, we can determine within those parametres what river is/was the most important within that framework.

If you would propose another operational definition or framework, I'm open minded about it. I just don't find "human history" to be analogues to "history of humans", despite the similarity. In example, I can accept the river systems you proposed as most important/influential for "history of the old world", and then again using only a rather narrow definition of it. Likewise, if we do use a broad definition of human history from first human activity ever to the current days, we'd have to default to the rivers in the fertile crescent, since that area mostly likely gave rise to the chronologically first advanced, urban human societies, but I don't see then how the Euphrates influenced the Niger basin or how the Nile influenced the Yangtze, and vice versa.

[Olthar]

The Pigeon River, obviously.

[New Lyrein]

Crimea River.

Thank you, I'll be here all week. Try the veal.

[Sylvaria]

Misissipi River.

Doesn't even exist.

Wait, what? Please explain.

[Madenia]

I'd say the Mississippi because it divides the part of America that has White Castle and the part that doesn't.

[Havenburgh]

Tigris and Euphrates.

[Wanna Nyan]

Nile

[Pope Joan]

For industry, the Rhine. For roots of Western Culture, a tossup between the Nile and Tigris/Euphrates.
For spiritual significance, the Ganges and Yangtze.

For being an artery of exploration, development, and then commerce, the Danube, Volga, and Mississippi/Ohio.

I have heard the a river is supposed to take its name from its longest tributary. The Ohio's longest tributary is the Allegheny, so ti should be called the Allegheny throughout its length. It then would be the longest tributary of the Mississippi, which would then have to also change its name to Allegheny.

Instead of Ol' Miss, we'd have Ol' Al?

[Ainin]

The Euphrates and the Tigris, I'd say.