Well, honey, one reason those urban civilizations in Europe were lagging behind the Fertile Crescent is because of the lack of fertile land and suitable climate for agriculture. Those Europeans were too busy running around in the forests hunting and gathering, while the folks in the Fertile Crescent were already planting crops and building cities. It's all about location, location, location, darling.
Chat with our AI personalities
because of its fertile soil
False
From the time period of 1500-1650, the French crescent had little effect on the Americas because it was not fully developed until the 1720s. Prior to 1663, the French colonies in the New World were concentrated in three locations: 1) Quebec; 2) Newfoundland (Plaisance); 3) the West Indies. The colonies in Quebec, which were the location from which the crescent spread and New France was born, were underpopulated and subject to frequent Native attacks, specifically from the Iroquois, who were allied to the Dutch and British. However, one key feature of this period in the later formation of the crescent was the establishment of the fur trade, which was highly profitable, linked Native peoples to Europeans (furs were traded for European goods, especially weapons and alcohol), and, by the nature of beaver furs, built the French crescent. Beavers were easily depleted and not quick to reproduce, so hunting them required expanding into new territory, which the French did by building military forts on key rivers. Eventually, this series of forts would become the French crescent. To conclude, from the period of 1500-1650, the French crescent had little effect because it had not yet been created but the foundation for it had been laid by the fur trade.
In the South because the soil in the South was very fertile and good for planting crops such as cotton.
Because New Jersey didn't have any natural harbors.