"Latitude, not attitude made the west rule". Do you agree with this? Discuss keeping in focus various geographical and historical events.

There has been curiosity with respect to the West rule since years. Some believe it’s due to their attitude. However, the real factor lies in their geographical position which made their latitudes be known as ‘lucky-latitudes’ and enabled them to rule the world.
It can be very well accepted that the rise of the West has very little to do with Western superiority, and has much to do with geography-favourable climate conditions in which to develop complex societies, favourable geographic location relative to the vast material resources of the Western Hemisphere, and a ready supply of energy to fuel mechanization and industrial innovation.
Geography is considered to be unfair as it can make all the difference in the world.
Some of the most developed countries lie in a narrow band of latitudes, roughly 20-35° north. They have been able to harness the resources available to them due to their geographical position and be the rulers of the world.
An example of Britain’s development is appropriate here. Britain is located into the cold Atlantic Ocean. Around 4000 years ago, when there was prosperity in the valleys of Nile, Indus and Yellow Rivers, Britain stayed backward. This was the consequence of geography.
But, it is the same geography, which has made Britain a wealthy and powerful nation and it can be credited to the historical efforts such as the quest of Industrial Revolution which ushered Britain.
Thus, there is a mix of geography and history which can make a lot of difference to a location’s prosperity and not the perceived attitude.

Topics: GS-I: Modern Indian History & Freedom Struggle