During the first half of the 20th century, "climatic determinism" was very much in vogue. It was a philosophy which, in its simplest form, might be found encapsulated in the well-known rhyme that runs as follows: What is it moulds the life of man?/ What makes some black and others tan?/ How is it that some dress in leaves,/ While others go in furs, and freeze?/ The weather.
But true advocates went further still. They tried to relate the whole course of history, from the rise of the Roman Empire to the fall of Tsarist Russia, entirely to variations in climate with both time and place.
The high priest of the movement, if one can call it that, was a professor of geography at Yale University called Elspeth Huntingdon, whose ideas were set out in a seminal work called Civilisation and Climate published in 1915. His contention was that only a certain type of climate is favourable to a high level of civilisation: rather conveniently, this climate - characterised by moderate temperatures, abundant rainfall and the frequent influence of frontal depressions - is now found mainly in Britain, Ireland and the neighbouring parts of continental Europe, and in some of the eastern regions of the United States, including Yale.
It is well known, of course, that many great centres of civilisation in the past lay much further to the south, such as Egypt, Mesopotamia and the eastern Mediterranean, and later, ancient Greece and Rome. Huntingdon attributes these apparent shifts in the centre of gravity of civilisation to climatic changes associated with an alleged northward movement of the belt of maximum cyclonic activity.
Other climatic determinists, looking at the events in Europe in the 1930s, have argued that in the mid-latitudes, inhabitants of regions enjoying an equable climate are predisposed to tolerance and liberalism, while rigid and conservative attitudes prevail in areas more subject to extremes. They point out that in Britain, with its largely equable maritime climate, there was little support for fascism in the 1930s; but in Spain, Germany, Italy and Austria, subject to Continental extremes, fascism had an easy victory.
By way of explanation it is suggested that the absence of seasonal extremes may help to foster a more relaxed attitude to life, there being no need to make elaborate plans to cope with long, freezing winters and torrid summers. But where the climate can be harsh at times, the pace of life may be driven by the seasons; the enforced discipline of timely preparation for extreme conditions may incline the local populace to the political right.
But of course, nobody believes such simplistic notions nowadays. Or do they?