This is argumentum ad verecundiam in a debate that is theoretical back-and-forth. I think it's at least worthy of examination, especially if you want to understand the points being made by those historians to which you allude. By all means link to their counterarguments, but don't chill the sharing of other work like that.

Every critique I’ve seen hasn’t really attacked the core thesis of the work, mostly dismantling ancillary supporting examples.

I’ve certainly not seen a refutation of the fact that the natural attributes of living in one place provide advantages over other places.

I haven’t looked into this in a while though, so if you’re aware of some more comprehensive rebuttals, I’d like to see them.