*looks at potentially oblique argument for
not integrating the Lowlands*
Okaaaaaaaaaaaay... I'm just going to be scratching my head about that idea.
As to whether or not we would get improvements out of the Lowlands, which exceed the yield we can achieve in our hills the answer is yes by some uncertain but large margin.
The reasons for this are:
Chinampas, invented by the previous rulers of the Lowlands the Xohyr, these at optimum levels can provide seven yields a year. Currently in our hills we don't really have means of effectively using these, they require more plains like geography, or at least less steep topography. This is less about plant health and more about sheer number of plants.
All the Lowlands are not created equal, by WoAN(which I need to find). The northern bits below the hills that connected us to the Thunder Speaker are pretty bleh in terms of water. I can't recall what their fertility is like, but it is better than our hills. This is the main northern part of Txolla, and what we would get if we integrate them, leaving them with the southern areas closer to the Harmurri which are better. Black soil and our irrigation techniques make this much better and the sheer land area alone would be an improvement over our hills. We may or may not get some of the middle areas which are somewhat better.
Black soil, regardless of the base fertility of the soil in the place we put it down(at least in this region), helps with water retention and minerals. This is plant health, but for the lowlands it ends up being more about being able to support far larger numbers of plants without draining the area of nutrients.
And then forestry takes the area, forts it up versus Nomads and anyone else, and prevents desertification. At that amount of forests our charcoal problems also become less of an issue. To be clear I am not talking about covering them in trees, but striking a good balance between food fields and forests.
Here is some WoAN about the Lowlands.
They're kind of locked into a perpetual cycle, and most of the fighting can be characterized as a form of organized raiding, but basically both sides kind of see themselves as protecting themselves from and getting revenge on their neighbours. That the upper classes tend to grow powerful based off of things like enslaving the enemy is a bonus. The big thing is that everyone knows that if any one group can conquer, hold, and centralize the lowlands they would have the resources to roll over all opposition, so they fight to deny resources as much as gain more for themselves.
Not as bad as last time, but major failure could cause many of their gains to collapse, reducing them down to a single city state once more.
It was significant, but the big issue was that the cities were all interdependent, and once that broke down each city fell into a death spiral of not enough land under control to feed population -> populations contract from death/emigration -> fewer soldiers to beat back the bandits and control the countryside -> less land under control to feed the population.
The combo would likely root out more corruption than it creates, yes.
The Palace will do several things, and there are a number of choices that will affect exactly what is done.
Yuuuuuuuuup. It's why someone holding the lowlands long enough to begin digesting it and centralizing scares everyone else involved in the mess. With long term stability the population will explode and provide a nearly endless well of manpower to draw upon.
Remember how the Xoh were able to support a True City with a relatively tiny area?
Extend that to the entire lowlands. The place is agriculturally rich, you just need to not wipe out a significant fraction of the population through violence and damage the farms every generation.
