It's kinda amazing how much effect elevation and terrain can have on a countries world power.

Mexico for example. By a lot a measures Mexico had a lot going for it during the rise of modern world powers that could have made it a major player. Resources, labour availabilty, farmland, and competitive military. Yet they never really managed to breakbout as a world power. How come? Mostly it comes down to the fact the country is mostly an elevated plateau who's capital and biggest economic hub is centrally located high on said plateau. Most of it's shoreline cut off by high ridges and difficult and expensive to transport goods to and from ocean going vessels. The major viable exception being the Yucatan which was hampered by thick jungle and unstable ground above water filled caverns. Mexico having miles of shoreline on two oceans seems it should be a huge major player yet because of it's rapid elevation from both coasts it has always operated more like a landlocked nation does. Had Mexico's terrain allowed for better and more viable ports connected by accesable transport to and from their capital and major markets. Mexico would be a force by now.

Of course imperialism had a huge part to play on wealth extrapolation which didn't help, yet even under Spainish imperialism Spain had a difficult time bringing it's colony to it's full economic potential because of these terrain shortcomings.


It could also be argued that they would have grown in naval and oceanic trade had they kept their northern territories now in the gands of the US. Yet there's some possible doubt there as the major center of cultural, economic, and political life was centered far south in Mexici City and relatively nearby other cities.