How did Greece/Persia develop an ancient civilization that matched the Mesopotamians and Egyptians, when they were not one of the seemingly superior river valley type civilization?

by razrazyy1

Ancient civilizations usually resided around rivers.

Egypt on the Nile,

Babylon/Assyria on the Tigris and Euphrates,

China on the Yellow & Yangtze,

Indus River Valley civilization on the Indus & Ganges,

Norte Chico on the Fortaleza, Pativilca, and the Supe, etc.

So why did civilization such as Greece or Persia, both of whom lacked major rivers comparable to the other ancient civilizations, still rival the ancient civilization around the river valleys, who logically seem superior?

ReverandT

Well Greece is pretty straightforward. They exchanged rivers for coastline. Athens, Corinth, Thebes, Sparta, etc. were all on or near the coast, engaged in extensive trade and founded "colony" settlements all around the Mediterranean to facilitate more trade. This trade infrastructure was more than enough for the Greeks to develop into economic powers. Note also that the major Greek city states stayed close to the coastline and never developed sifnificant inland empires.

The Persians on the other hand (assuming you mean the Achaemenids) conquered many of those river valleys you listed within 2 generations. Cyrus the Great struck at a time of political insyability with an army of abnormal quality. Unfortunately we don't have a lot of information on the army of Cyrus, that combination proved fatal for most of Persias wealthier neighbors. Egypt then fell to Cambysses II (Cyrus's son) in a similar fashion. So, the Persians didn't become a great civilization in the absence of rivers. They became a great power after conquering those river valleys.