TheRPGSite

If you were to use Guns, Germs, and Steel in your worldbuilding, or you do, how would/how do you use it?

To anyone that doesn't know that GGS is: it's basically a paper suggesting that geography and climate, not innate ability, affects the development of human civilization. The Native Americans weren't inferior because they couldn't build a civilization with iron working, gunpowder, and astronomy, they just had bad geography and little to no domesticable animals. If you put the whitest people in Pre-Columbian America, they would face the same problems. In Diamond's view, whether you can achieve Eurasian levels of civilization by the 11,500th year after developing agriculture  (10,000 BCE + 11,500 = 1500 CE) depends on

- if your continent is longer than it is tall
- if you have anything to domesticate
- if your crops have good yield and are easy to grow


Of note is the explanation for Europe's division- the fractured land theory. https://www.sas.upenn.edu/~jesusfv/Fractured_Land.pdf which has been supported by a simulation.

I'd say it's a pretty good way of explaining how a given world's cultures and civilizations are the way they are, without having to rely on racism.

There's a fair amount of environmental determinism built into GGS's arguments, which definitely are fair to critique. Though Diamond does spend a lot of time addressing those criticisms (at least in the edition of the book I have).

As a model for very deep worldbuilding, it's got the benefit of being fairly coherent and directly applicable. Your players wouldn't notice it either way. It is a good place to start for verisimilitude.

Edit: How I would use the book and the theory: I think I'd use it after the fact, once my factions are in place, and once my world's environment and geography is more or less defined. Why are the hunter-gatherer swamp people technologically less developed than the people who live on the plains and have farming and cities? Geography! 

Quote from: MeganovaStella on October 07, 2023, 07:31:24 PM
In Diamond's view, whether you can achieve Eurasian levels of civilization by the 11,500th year after developing agriculture  (10,000 BCE + 11,500 = 1500 CE) depends on

- if your continent is longer than it is tall
- if you have anything to domesticate
- if your crops have good yield and are easy to grow

It's tricky to summarize quickly. He has a bunch of micro-examples that are interesting. I think he has a solid argument that Europe, the Middle East, India, and China all had a huge leg up over peoples elsewhere like Australia or the Americas. Those civilizations all shared with each other along similar latitudes -- driven by detailed properties their crops (wheat, rice) and livestock (horses, cows, pigs). They then proceeded to share a ton more advancements along that same latitude. A ton of advancements like writing, metallurgy, and gunpowder were all invented far away from where they later advanced.

I think it's potentially useful if you have an Earth-like world that works by scientific principles, and you want to develop some interesting alternate timelines.

That said, I don't think most RPG world designers know or care what the yield on their crops are. They're designing at a different level. But it is a case study in looking at how specific influences like crops and livestock have a huge influence on social development. So would things like magic and monsters. But again, I don't think RPG world designers generally work from first principles to consequences. They have something they want, and then want to make it less hugely implausible that it would turn out that way.

The book Guns, Germs, and Steel has a few big flaws in that it omits some important historical context and some of the data presented is wrong.  Don't take it as The Big Truth for world building purposes.  This isn't the place to do a deep dive on the issue but a quick google search will get you started.

That said, if you're world building, looking at how mundane things shape culture and history is an excellent idea.  Another book one should read if you're doing world building is Salt, a History of the World.  It's all about the how the need and production of salt shaped history and culture around the world.

The end of the last glacial maximum of the current ice age probably led to agriculture as the temperatures and CO2 would have risen which would allow plant life to be more easily grown/harvested.

North America probably had a lot of set backs due to the melting of the glaciers that covered a large portion of it.

Diamond's best arguments IMO are in the conclusions, where he talks about interconnectivity between continents vs isolation etc. I'm not sure if i buy some of the arguments he spends more time on in the other chapters, such as "certain animals simply cannot be domesticated". Zebra is one example you hear a lot. If you ask me, if we saw a true wild horse before they had been domesticated we'd say the same.

But considering that smaller, isolated populations are likely to lag behind technologically makes sense in certain settings.

Interesting work but far from conclusive by any rational standard and parts are easily falsified and once falsified that means the theory is gone.    For instance.  Buffalo have been domesticated.  In a period of only 100 years.  In a thousand years they can easily be made smaller and even more docile.  Moose, wolves, et al.  All available. 

A weak form of Diamond's argument is probably correct, at least functionally. Agricultural plants and animals transmitted faster lattitudinally. Although Diamond is friendly to the pots-not-people assumption common to his time of publication, while genetic evidence since shows much more genetic replacement, more conquest than cultural transmission, this doesn't change his basic point.

Zebras probably aren't undomesticable. There are pictures of them being ridden and pulling carts. You can say that's taming not domestication, but taming over multiple generations would certainly result in culling the hard cases, and come to the same thing.

The best I can do for Diamond here is not to say that zebras were impossible, but that domesticating horses might not have been inevitable, or even likely.

Horses weren't an easy domestication. Genetic typing shows much greater variation in the mitochondrial line (mares were more docile), while Y dna from stallions (the harder case) suggests a strong bottleneck at domestication, maybe only a few individuals at a specific time and place. I.e. we only pulled it off once, and it was always easier after that to buy or steal domesticated horses, or round up "wild" domestic horses, than go after something like the Przewalski's horse.

So getting horses at all was still a major leg up. Especially for the first adapters, it at least partly explains the spread of the proto-Indo-Europeans (who took a while to conceive of conquer-tax-rule over total replacement).

Quote from: Scooter on October 08, 2023, 10:45:04 AM
Interesting work but far from conclusive by any rational standard and parts are easily falsified and once falsified that means the theory is gone.    For instance.  Buffalo have been domesticated.  In a period of only 100 years.  In a thousand years they can easily be made smaller and even more docile.  Moose, wolves, et al.  All available.

Here's an interesting case: reindeer. Sami people in Northern Europe have been using and herding reindeer for ages, but they never ride them. Because riding reindeer is crazy right? Except that in Central Asia other people do ride reindeer.

Similarly: Horses were driven extinct in America through overhunting (we think) and nobody thought about domesticating them, much less riding them because that would be crazy right? It actually is kinda crazy, but somehow someone did. The reason why people were later riding all over Eurasia was that one small population somewhere in Central Asia came up with this crazy idea (actually series of ideas), perhaps even partially accidentally (who knows), and it spread from there.

Quote from: Trond on October 08, 2023, 06:45:36 PM

Quote from: Scooter on October 08, 2023, 10:45:04 AM
Interesting work but far from conclusive by any rational standard and parts are easily falsified and once falsified that means the theory is gone.    For instance.  Buffalo have been domesticated.  In a period of only 100 years.  In a thousand years they can easily be made smaller and even more docile.  Moose, wolves, et al.  All available.

Here's an interesting case: reindeer. Sami people in Northern Europe have been using and herding reindeer for ages, but they never ride them. Because riding reindeer is crazy right? Except that in Central Asia other people do ride reindeer.

Similarly: Horses were driven extinct in America through overhunting (we think) and nobody thought about domesticating them, much less riding them because that would be crazy right? It actually is kinda crazy, but somehow someone did. The reason why people were later riding all over Eurasia was that one small population somewhere in Central Asia came up with this crazy idea (actually series of ideas), perhaps even partially accidentally (who knows), and it spread from there.

Correct.  More about the people than the geographic area.  Especially when the geographic area in question  has every climate imaginable in profusion.

To all the Diamond detractors:

You forget one very important thing, sure domesticating almost animal is possible, but you're also contending with other issues like climate, disease, etc.

Why was the colonization of Africa so late? Disease

Domestication goes well beyond from capturing a few beasts, it's selective breeding and selection, the Dogs came to be (most likely) because our ancestors killed the more independent agressive cubs, thus only the friendlier (to humans) ones got to reproduce. It was done at least two times that we know of.

Geography, why the Tibetans never had a navy? Why the precolumbine cultures didn't have carts? They knew the wheel as proven by some toys. The terrain didn't allow them to take advantage of the wheel.

For whatever reason they didn't domesticate many of the animlas around them, but animal husbandry (besides dogs) comes after agriculture, if you're not practicing agriculture you have little use for beasts of burden, if you can't use carts more of the same. It's all tied together.

Getting back to RPGs, the book is a good source for worldbuilding if you know what to look for and can sintetize it, so a culture that lives in high mountains with no big and placid bodies of water won't develop sailing. One that lives at sea level in the plains will have dificulty breathing at high altitudes...

It all depends on how realistic you want your world to be.

Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 08, 2023, 07:35:50 PM
To all the Diamond detractors:

You forget one very important thing, sure domesticating almost animal is possible, but you're also contending with other issues like climate, disease, etc.

Portions of the theory presented have been falsified.  Other points are untestable thus don't qualify for being included in a scientific theory at all.  Thus the theory itself is no longer valid.

Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 08, 2023, 07:35:50 PM
To all the Diamond detractors:

I read the book many moons ago.  I found it interesting.  It was later that I found out that he had put in bad information (the correct information was known by the academic community while he was writing the book) and omitted important facts pertinent to his subject matter.  I found this disappointing.  Unfortunately, this leaves everything in the book subject to doubt.

This aside, the over all idea of examining the mundane and it's impact on the growth of culture is excellent.  The question of why one culture succeeded over another by looking at all the little pieces is perfectly valid.  I mentioned the book Salt earlier and it's excellent material to look at for how a mundane but crucial resource shaped history and culture.

There are so many things that you can use to shape your world during world building.  I actually used the concept in my own world building, both in my fantasy world and in my scifi setting.  I love making a functioning world for players to interact with.

I would caution any GM or game designer that world building can be a bit of a trap.  The better you do your world building, the more you want to show it off.  Sadly, good world building is like good animatronics, the working parts should make it look alive but be hidden from the ones it's mean to entertain.   

Quote from: BadApple on October 08, 2023, 10:32:28 PM

Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 08, 2023, 07:35:50 PM
To all the Diamond detractors:

I read the book many moons ago.  I found it interesting.  It was later that I found out that he had put in bad information (the correct information was known by the academic community while he was writing the book) and omitted important facts pertinent to his subject matter.  I found this disappointing.  Unfortunately, this leaves everything in the book subject to doubt.

This aside, the over all idea of examining the mundane and it's impact on the growth of culture is excellent.  The question of why one culture succeeded over another by looking at all the little pieces is perfectly valid.  I mentioned the book Salt earlier and it's excellent material to look at for how a mundane but crucial resource shaped history and culture.

There are so many things that you can use to shape your world during world building.  I actually used the concept in my own world building, both in my fantasy world and in my scifi setting.  I love making a functioning world for players to interact with.

I would caution any GM or game designer that world building can be a bit of a trap.  The better you do your world building, the more you want to show it off.  Sadly, good world building is like good animatronics, the working parts should make it look alive but be hidden from the ones it's mean to entertain.   

Who are the scientific sources against him?

Quote from: Scooter on October 08, 2023, 07:41:57 PM

Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 08, 2023, 07:35:50 PM
To all the Diamond detractors:

You forget one very important thing, sure domesticating almost animal is possible, but you're also contending with other issues like climate, disease, etc.

Portions of the theory presented have been falsified.  Other points are untestable thus don't qualify for being included in a scientific theory at all.  Thus the theory itself is no longer valid.

Falsified by whom?

Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 08, 2023, 11:08:19 PM

Quote from: BadApple on October 08, 2023, 10:32:28 PM

Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 08, 2023, 07:35:50 PM
To all the Diamond detractors:

I read the book many moons ago.  I found it interesting.  It was later that I found out that he had put in bad information (the correct information was known by the academic community while he was writing the book) and omitted important facts pertinent to his subject matter.  I found this disappointing.  Unfortunately, this leaves everything in the book subject to doubt.

This aside, the over all idea of examining the mundane and it's impact on the growth of culture is excellent.  The question of why one culture succeeded over another by looking at all the little pieces is perfectly valid.  I mentioned the book Salt earlier and it's excellent material to look at for how a mundane but crucial resource shaped history and culture.

There are so many things that you can use to shape your world during world building.  I actually used the concept in my own world building, both in my fantasy world and in my scifi setting.  I love making a functioning world for players to interact with.

I would caution any GM or game designer that world building can be a bit of a trap.  The better you do your world building, the more you want to show it off.  Sadly, good world building is like good animatronics, the working parts should make it look alive but be hidden from the ones it's mean to entertain.   

Who are the scientific sources against him?

I would recommend that you google it.  It's a bit of a rabbit hole.  There's a lot of modern ideological leverage involved using theories in the book as a fulcrum.  Because there is some serious political issues surrounding it, the fact that I don't represent any party, and I'm not accredited in any related field, I won't be posting names.  I will say that you will very quickly dig up a lot with a simple search.

Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 08, 2023, 11:08:19 PM

Quote from: BadApple on October 08, 2023, 10:32:28 PM

Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 08, 2023, 07:35:50 PM
To all the Diamond detractors:

I read the book many moons ago.  I found it interesting.  It was later that I found out that he had put in bad information (the correct information was known by the academic community while he was writing the book) and omitted important facts pertinent to his subject matter.  I found this disappointing.  Unfortunately, this leaves everything in the book subject to doubt.

This aside, the over all idea of examining the mundane and it's impact on the growth of culture is excellent.  The question of why one culture succeeded over another by looking at all the little pieces is perfectly valid.  I mentioned the book Salt earlier and it's excellent material to look at for how a mundane but crucial resource shaped history and culture.

There are so many things that you can use to shape your world during world building.  I actually used the concept in my own world building, both in my fantasy world and in my scifi setting.  I love making a functioning world for players to interact with.

I would caution any GM or game designer that world building can be a bit of a trap.  The better you do your world building, the more you want to show it off.  Sadly, good world building is like good animatronics, the working parts should make it look alive but be hidden from the ones it's mean to entertain.   

Who are the scientific sources against him?

Greetings!

Hey my friend!

Yeah, I've read "Guns, Germs, and Steel." I used to discuss Diamond's book with several of my college professors. Two Historians, a Sociologist, a Political Science professor, and an Anthropologist. All of them pretty much agreed that Diamond wrote an interesting book and presents some very good arguments--while simultaneously, some of his arguments presented in his book are flawed and have problems.

I suppose then, like any decent scholar, Diamond is right on some things, and wrong on others. That dynamic is not any different from most other scholars and academics of good quality.

Personally, I enjoyed "Guns, Germs, and Steel." I can't disagree with my college professors, as all of them highlighted legitimate and powerful arguments against various arguments that Diamond makes in his book. So, *shrugs* "Guns, Germs, and Steel" is a decent book, with some good analysis within it. Some good, with some flaws.

As a resource for game world building, I would say that Diamond's book makes for a worthwhile resource. I certainly learned a few things from reading the book. As I said, I liked the book, and feel that "Guns, Germs, and Steel" is a solid work.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 08, 2023, 11:08:42 PM

Falsified by whom?

By the real world.

Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 08, 2023, 11:08:19 PM

Who are the scientific sources against him?

REALITY!  Domesticated bison exist.  Same with domesticated deer species.  PLUS the fucking theory overall is NOT testable.  Do you know what that means for a scientific theory?

I think it's perfectly fine to use if you already have an idea of how your world is *supposed* to look. Yes there are flaws in Diamonds work (as others have posted above) I don't think that means it's not useful as a tool for worldbuilding.

After all, your players aren't going to be doing anthropology are they? But insofar as using Diamonds ideas (or ANYONE ELSES) to worldbuild, I think there are much more important considerations that make dickering around whether Diamonds model (or anyone elses) is accurate: Magic and Gods.

Integrating those ideas into Diamond's model is possible - and can completely throw it out of whack unless you do a lot of self-discipline in your application of Diamond's ideas to your world.

Consider the power of Magic(tm) allows for the domestication of not just any animal, but also impact geography (Move Earth? Create Water? you think those things are basic spells but cast enmasse over time and yes you can could/would impact entire biomes. Imagine what the Pharaohs could do with actual low-level D&D magic? The Sahara would have remained a savannah or hell, could have stayed green and maybe remained a forest? Those radar images showing mighty riverbeds cutting from east to west across the Sahara pre-12k years ago means early civilizations could very well have had the magic to keep the climate more static, (barring acts of God(s) and meteor strikes etc.).

Quote from: tenbones on October 09, 2023, 11:05:42 AM
I think it's perfectly fine to use if you already have an idea of how your world is *supposed* to look. Yes there are flaws in Diamonds work (as others have posted above) I don't think that means it's not useful as a tool for worldbuilding.

Designing fantasy worlds has little to do with reality.  Diamonds work can be considered another model for fantasy worlds.  There's no problem with that at all.  A fantasy world doesn't have to hold up to logic for the most part.  I like having a little paradise at the bottom of a deep crater in the middle of a frigid mountainous area.

This seems to be a semi-central repository for criticisms of the book:

https://www.livinganthropologically.com/archaeology/guns-germs-and-steel-jared-diamond/

Quote from: MeganovaStella on October 07, 2023, 07:31:24 PM
If you were to use Guns, Germs, and Steel in your worldbuilding, or you do, how would/how do you use it?

I'd treat it with respect as I would any other religious document.  It has millions of believers, after all.  You'd take its specious, made-up, anti-white claims literally, just as you would parse Noah's Ark literally if your worldbuilding was based on the Bible.

Quote from: tenbones on October 09, 2023, 11:05:42 AM
After all, your players aren't going to be doing anthropology are they?

Np, the anthropology majors do Tekumel.

Quote from: Scooter on October 09, 2023, 08:48:32 AM

Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 08, 2023, 11:08:19 PM

Who are the scientific sources against him?

REALITY!  Domesticated bison exist.  Same with domesticated deer species.  PLUS the fucking theory overall is NOT testable.  Do you know what that means for a scientific theory?

But it's not a scientific theory.  It's a discourse on the development of societies, but it's not any more a scientific theory than Das Kapital.
The standards of information are different.  Sure, he brings in stuff about domesticating plants and animals and tries to provide evidence for his views, but this is not intended to be a scientific theory.

Quote from: Persimmon on October 10, 2023, 08:36:11 AM

Quote from: Scooter on October 09, 2023, 08:48:32 AM
REALITY!  Domesticated bison exist.  Same with domesticated deer species.  PLUS the fucking theory overall is NOT testable.  Do you know what that means for a scientific theory?

But it's not a scientific theory.  It's a discourse on the development of societies, but it's not any more a scientific theory than Das Kapital.
The standards of information are different.  Sure, he brings in stuff about domesticating plants and animals and tries to provide evidence for his views, but this is not intended to be a scientific theory.

Exactly. No theories about human development are testable. The best one can do is search for parallel case studies within human development. (For that matter, astronomy also isn't testable, or macro-evolution.)

Further, the point about bison is specious. Bison were only barely domesticated -- and some of that may only have been due to cross-breeding of bison with European domestic cattle. From the Wikipedia article on bison:

QuoteDespite being the closest relatives of domestic cattle native to North America, bison were never domesticated by Native Americans. Later attempts of domestication by Europeans prior to the 20th century met with limited success. Bison were described as having a "wild and ungovernable temper"; they can jump close to 1.8 m (6 ft) vertically, and run 55–70 km/h (35–45 mph) when agitated. This agility and speed, combined with their great size and weight, makes bison herds difficult to confine, as they can easily escape or destroy most fencing systems, including most razor wire. The most successful systems involve large, 6-metre (20 ft) fences made from welded steel I beams sunk at least 1.8 m (6 ft) into concrete. These fencing systems, while expensive, require very little maintenance. Furthermore, making the fence sections overlap so the grassy areas beyond are not visible prevents the bison from trying to get to new range.

And regarding genetics:

QuoteA new study published in the journal Scientific Reports has revealed the strongest evidence to date that all bison in North America carry multiple small, but clearly identifiable, regions of DNA that originated from domestic cattle.

Source: https://www.technologynetworks.com/genomics/news/strong-evidence-that-all-bison-in-north-america-originated-from-domestic-cattle-361470

The limited domestication of bison by cross-breeding them with European cattle isn't a significant counterpoint. Diamond already points out in the book that Andeans had domesticated llamas, alpacas, and guinea pigs from ancient times, but none of those had anywhere near the impact on civilization that the horse did in Eurasia.

The general point stands that the available choices of wild animals to domesticate has a major impact on civilizational development.

Greetings!

Well, has anyone here actually read "Guns, Germs, and Steel" like, now? Recently? It has been years since I read Diamond's book. As I said previously, at the time, I thought the book was solid scholarship. As for "Scientific Theory"--it is a book, by a Historian. Maybe he's an Anthropologist. I forget. Anyways, yeah, I don't think "Scientific Theory" has anything to do with Diamond's book. There are no "experiments" to replicate. There are no laboratory procedures involved.
His main discussion concerned the impact and influence that geography, climate, and resources have on how different cultures of people--develop differently. Unless I am mistaken, that is his main contribution. As far as how strong an argument it is, well, I would think his argument makes perfect and good sense.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

  The issue I had was his arguments seemed to have an agenda that he more or less decided before writing the book...which I think he felt compelled to have decided because if differences in civilizations and advancement are not determined solely from geographic luck....well he gets into what has become a very, very, very career ending subject for an academic.

Quote from: Persimmon on October 10, 2023, 08:36:11 AM

Quote from: Scooter on October 09, 2023, 08:48:32 AM

Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 08, 2023, 11:08:19 PM

Who are the scientific sources against him?

REALITY!  Domesticated bison exist.  Same with domesticated deer species.  PLUS the fucking theory overall is NOT testable.  Do you know what that means for a scientific theory?

But it's not a scientific theory.

That's what I said.

Quote from: oggsmash on October 10, 2023, 02:11:13 PM
  The issue I had was his arguments seemed to have an agenda that he more or less decided before writing the book...

He committed professional suicide via confirmation bias.

I have read the book and used parts of it for lectures.  As I recall (my copy of the book is at my work office), he was a medical doctor or biochemist when he wrote the book.  Now he is referred to as a scientist-writer in bios as his books have made him well-known.

Quote from: Persimmon on October 10, 2023, 04:13:36 PM
I have read the book and used parts of it for lectures.  As I recall (my copy of the book is at my work office), he was a medical doctor or biochemist when he wrote the book.  Now he is referred to as a scientist-writer in bios as his books have made him well-known.

Expanding a bit - he had professorships in three fields (physiology, ecology, and environmental history) starting in the 1960s before writing GG&S in 1997. From Wikipedia:

QuoteHe attended the Roxbury Latin School and studied biochemical sciences at Harvard College, graduating in 1958. He obtained his PhD from Trinity College, Cambridge in 1961, with a thesis on the physiology and biophysics of membranes in the gallbladder.

After graduation from Cambridge, Diamond returned to Harvard as a Junior Fellow until 1965, and, in 1968, became a professor of physiology at UCLA Medical School. While in his twenties he developed a second, parallel, career in ornithology and ecology, specialising in New Guinea and nearby islands, which he began visiting from 1964. Later, in his fifties, Diamond developed a third career in environmental history and became a professor of geography at UCLA, his current position.

Quote from: BadApple on October 08, 2023, 08:49:33 AM
The book Guns, Germs, and Steel has a few big flaws in that it omits some important historical context and some of the data presented is wrong.  Don't take it as The Big Truth for world building purposes.  This isn't the place to do a deep dive on the issue but a quick google search will get you started.

That said, if you're world building, looking at how mundane things shape culture and history is an excellent idea.  Another book one should read if you're doing world building is Salt, a History of the World.  It's all about the how the need and production of salt shaped history and culture around the world.

A good book to wash out the taste of the postmodern apologia claptrap that is Guns, Germs, and Steel:

The Wealth and Poverty of Nations: by David S. Landes

Quote from: Jaeger on October 10, 2023, 06:30:32 PM

A good book to wash out the taste of the postmodern apologia claptrap that is Guns, Germs, and Steel:

The Wealth and Poverty of Nations: by David S. Landes

Yes, indeed.

Quote from: Jaeger on October 10, 2023, 06:30:32 PM

Quote from: BadApple on October 08, 2023, 08:49:33 AM
The book Guns, Germs, and Steel has a few big flaws in that it omits some important historical context and some of the data presented is wrong.  Don't take it as The Big Truth for world building purposes.  This isn't the place to do a deep dive on the issue but a quick google search will get you started.

That said, if you're world building, looking at how mundane things shape culture and history is an excellent idea.  Another book one should read if you're doing world building is Salt, a History of the World.  It's all about the how the need and production of salt shaped history and culture around the world.

A good book to wash out the taste of the postmodern apologia claptrap that is Guns, Germs, and Steel:

The Wealth and Poverty of Nations: by David S. Landes

Except that it's also full of bad assumptions, omissions, and other ridiculous statements and logic jumps.  But more importantly, most of the "rich nations" he discusses have been systematically shooting themselves in the foot for the past three decades.  So that kind of undermines his culturally-based argument since it doesn't allow much for change.  The problem is that none of these grand narrative approaches really hold up, because they try to do too much and realities are always more contingent and complicated when the general public just wants simple answers and quick fixes.

Quote from: MeganovaStella on October 07, 2023, 07:31:24 PM
If you were to use Guns, Germs, and Steel in your worldbuilding, or you do, how would/how do you use it?

To anyone that doesn't know that GGS is: it's basically a paper suggesting that geography and climate, not innate ability, affects the development of human civilization. The Native Americans weren't inferior because they couldn't build a civilization with iron working, gunpowder, and astronomy, they just had bad geography and little to no domesticable animals. If you put the whitest people in Pre-Columbian America, they would face the same problems. In Diamond's view, whether you can achieve Eurasian levels of civilization by the 11,500th year after developing agriculture  (10,000 BCE + 11,500 = 1500 CE) depends on

- if your continent is longer than it is tall
- if you have anything to domesticate
- if your crops have good yield and are easy to grow


Of note is the explanation for Europe's division- the fractured land theory. https://www.sas.upenn.edu/~jesusfv/Fractured_Land.pdf which has been supported by a simulation.

And this has ??? to do with TTRPGs? We play in worlds formed and maintained by Magic  ;)

Quote from: Jaeger on October 10, 2023, 06:30:32 PM

Quote from: BadApple on October 08, 2023, 08:49:33 AM
The book Guns, Germs, and Steel has a few big flaws in that it omits some important historical context and some of the data presented is wrong.  Don't take it as The Big Truth for world building purposes.  This isn't the place to do a deep dive on the issue but a quick google search will get you started.

That said, if you're world building, looking at how mundane things shape culture and history is an excellent idea.  Another book one should read if you're doing world building is Salt, a History of the World.  It's all about the how the need and production of salt shaped history and culture around the world.

A good book to wash out the taste of the postmodern apologia claptrap that is Guns, Germs, and Steel:

The Wealth and Poverty of Nations: by David S. Landes

Greetings!

"Post modern apologia claptrap!" ;D

Excellent, Jaeger! I love it.

*Sigh* Diamond's book is sounding more and more suspicious. That's sad. Why couldn't he just write a decent scholarly book on history, geography, and anthropology, providing some interesting analysis and commentary?

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Quote from: Persimmon on October 10, 2023, 06:40:35 PM
The problem is that none of these grand narrative approaches really hold up, because they try to do too much and realities are always more contingent and complicated when the general public just wants simple answers and quick fixes.

An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations by Adam Smith holds up under scrutiny because he never claims to have unlocked "the big secret."  He describes the parts that he didn't understand as "the unseen guiding hand" and alludes to the idea it may be of a spiritual nature.  He doesn't try to lock it down.

Several books that explore the grand narrative would be better served if they would assume a position of exploring and appreciating the questions rather than arrogantly positing "the answer."

I would highlight that Stephen Hawkins got it wrong on black holes.  At least he was honest enough to admit it.

Rolling back to RPGs and world building, I think it's a great idea for a creator to look at how things are interconnected, how the mundane affects the the things at large, and how certain elements of your world shape the stage your players act upon.  In the end, I don't believe academia at any level should command how I game but I can borrow and steal  from any source I think might make my sessions more fun for myself and my players.

Quote from: Persimmon on October 10, 2023, 06:40:35 PM

Except that it's also full of bad assumptions, omissions, and other ridiculous statements and logic jumps. But more importantly, most of the "rich nations" he discusses have been systematically shooting themselves in the foot for the past three decades.So that kind of undermines his culturally-based argument since it doesn't allow much for change.  The problem is that none of these grand narrative approaches really hold up, because they try to do too much and realities are always more contingent and complicated when the general public just wants simple answers and quick fixes.

It's not perfect. No book of that type is.

As to:

Quote from: Persimmon on October 10, 2023, 06:40:35 PMBut more importantly, most of the "rich nations" he discusses have been systematically shooting themselves in the foot for the past three decades.  So that kind of undermines his culturally-based argument since it doesn't allow much for change.

In my opinion that is an oversimplification of his core argument: That certain cultural values and traits are better than others.

The cultures that embrace them prosper, and the ones that don't either fail, or greatly hinder their prosperity.

Of course culture can change over time. And in a negative fashion. I don't see where he says that this does not, or cannot happen.

After all, many once mighty cultures have fallen due to: "systematically shooting themselves in the foot".

No one is immune to self-destruction.

Quote from: Persimmon on October 10, 2023, 06:40:35 PM
  But more importantly, most of the "rich nations" he discusses have been systematically shooting themselves in the foot for the past three decades. 

He says nowhere in the book that societies cannot or do not change over time, and for the worse. Then becoming LESS prosperous.  Thus your argument is a nothing burger.

Quote from: Jaeger on October 10, 2023, 06:30:32 PM

Quote from: BadApple on October 08, 2023, 08:49:33 AM
The book Guns, Germs, and Steel has a few big flaws in that it omits some important historical context and some of the data presented is wrong.  Don't take it as The Big Truth for world building purposes.  This isn't the place to do a deep dive on the issue but a quick google search will get you started.

That said, if you're world building, looking at how mundane things shape culture and history is an excellent idea.  Another book one should read if you're doing world building is Salt, a History of the World.  It's all about the how the need and production of salt shaped history and culture around the world.

A good book to wash out the taste of the postmodern apologia claptrap that is Guns, Germs, and Steel:

The Wealth and Poverty of Nations: by David S. Landes

> guns germs and steel is postmodern

What

Quote from: Kyle Aaron on October 09, 2023, 10:52:06 PM

Quote from: tenbones on October 09, 2023, 11:05:42 AM
After all, your players aren't going to be doing anthropology are they?

Np, the anthropology majors do Tekumel.

Touche.

By the way, I have a little heartwarming story from using this book in teaching.

We had been discussing a couple of other books and when I got to Guns Germs and Steel, I noticed one Asian-American student rolling her eyes.
I asked why, and she said "because of the ridiculous white guilt in the introduction!"
Then I remembered author (Diamond) talks in the introduction about how it is important to remember not to be racist, and that the reason why some populations lag behind others technologically is not due to race. But then he goes on to say that he does believe that some of the non-white races are, in fact, smarter than whites (I believe he was actually talking about people from Papua New Guinea here). I have to admit that it is pretty cringe-worthy and proto-woke.

The heartwarming part was that the student recognized this, and this is now maybe five years ago.

The problem with guns, germs and steel is that our ancestors in the old world had to domesticate bison and cattle.  North America had access to bison and could have started the domestication process, they never did.  North America has the best navigable water ways in the world with ample access to salt and iron, the natives never built upon it.  A better way of looking at it is one tribe had an ancestor who had an idea and followed through, the North American tribes did not.

A lot of discussion is going on about the credibility of the book rather than it's usefulness in world building.  I'm at least partially to blame due to the fact I was one of the earliest to take a shot at the book.  So let me try to help get it back on line.

If you're doing a historical game, I think it's a poor use of your time (setting aside any flaws in it) because there are better ways to establish the experience of the setting.  An RPG is about experiencing the lives of the PCs.  I would think more direct and human historical material would be more useful.  After all, you don't need to construct your setting, just lay it out.

If you're doing a fantastic fantasy setting, particularly where magic is a thing, then GG&S isn't going to be very useful on laying out how the culture is going to develop.  Maybe as a cursory question of "why is this group in a different place than that group?" but not for actual world building.

The only place where GG&S would be useful is if your world building is "just like real earth but with different land mass shapes."  That would be a fairly niche game.  At this point, geopolitical theory would be important and a look at academic sources might be useful.  However, GG&S isn't comprehensive and sets aside some more common root concepts that I think should be more focused on. 

Lastly, if you read a book that sparks your imagination, good.  As creators and GMs, it's our job to make a good game and the imagination flowing is an important part of that,  However, I think the real value in RPGs is limited at best and a distraction in function.

It's of little to no use to fantasy world building.  A book based on what makes a medieval world town successful and the rules and laws governing the people there is useful.  You need a source of fresh water, salt, iron, coal or charcoal, stone for walls to protect the town and arable land all near each other OR on a navigable river where it can be traded for.  From there luxury goods can come into play.  Roads makes poor trade routes even though we pretend they are with merchants in wagons etc, it would be a large pack mule of buffalo trains for a lot of caravans in medieval Europe.  What are the male towns requirements of behavior and female towns requirements for behavior.  How are law breakers treated?  What causes shunning?  How are disease outbreaks treated?  How did taxes get collected?  How did free cities operate when surrounded by feudal lords eyeing them?

Quote from: BadApple on October 11, 2023, 02:07:38 PM
If you're doing a fantastic fantasy setting, particularly where magic is a thing, then GG&S isn't going to be very useful on laying out how the culture is going to develop.  Maybe as a cursory question of "why is this group in a different place than that group?" but not for actual world building.

The only place where GG&S would be useful is if your world building is "just like real earth but with different land mass shapes."

I think the examples of how different environments affected real-world development is useful if one wants to speculatively project what history would be like with magic or other fantasy influences.

I think a standard D&D world has way too many magical and divine influences to do this, but it could be interesting to ask "How would history develop if there were dragons?" or "How would history develop if there were psychic powers?"

I think I had recently read GG&S when I wrote my old essay "Magic and Society in RPGs", and it shows similar thinking:

https://www.darkshire.net/jhkim/rpg/magic/magicandsociety.html

Quote from: honeydipperdavid on October 11, 2023, 01:36:02 PM
... our ancestors in the old world had to domesticate bison and cattle ...

North America has the best navigable water ways in the world with ample access to salt and iron, the natives never built upon it.

They used the waterways for extensive trade networks, just like early Europeans. "The natives never built upon it" is pretty unclear.

And Europeans didn't domesticate the bison, they domesticated the aurochs; European bison survived in captivity when the wild ones were exterminated, and have since been reintroduced into the wild, but being captive in a zoo is not the same thing as domestication.

Quote from: Naburimannu on October 12, 2023, 08:36:53 AM


They used the waterways for extensive trade networks, just like early Europeans. "The natives never built upon it" is pretty unclear.

It's crystal clear.  The people that were in North America before Europeans DID NOT CAPITALIZE OF THE WATERWAYS TO SET UP TRADING ECONOMY.

Are you illiterate? 

Quote from: Scooter on October 12, 2023, 08:46:41 AM

Quote from: Naburimannu on October 12, 2023, 08:36:53 AM


They used the waterways for extensive trade networks, just like early Europeans. "The natives never built upon it" is pretty unclear.

It's crystal clear.  The people that were in North America before Europeans DID NOT CAPITALIZE OF THE WATERWAYS TO SET UP TRADING ECONOMY.

Are you illiterate?

Are you?

He said, and is correct, that the native tribes DID use the waterways for extensive trade, they just never used it to transport mass food stuffs or the like since the tribes were self-sufficient.

You don't need a barge to ship 20 tons of grain when you're only trading a comparative handful of pelts for some turquoise or sea shells and visa versa.

They had trade, the degree to which it was "built up" is rather questionable.

One thing I don't see discussed in terms of factors for developing civilization is that when the basic needs of survival are readily available, there's no pressure for technological progress or to clump together into large communities to facilitate sharing resources.

I've seen some anthropological studies suggesting that civilization most often flourishes in regions where the surroundings are slightly less than ideal and therefore work and cooperation are required and labor saving advances are valued.

Generally these are places that are slightly cooler and/or drier than what unclothed humans would find comfortable (but not so cold or dry that reasonable effort can't grow food).

Egypt, for example, is a narrow stretch of fertile land where populations previously able to survive in the fertile Sahara plains* clumped up in search of food/water and effort and technology (learning to use the seasonal floods, irrigation, etc.) was needed to feed everyone.

It was similar along the Fertile Crescent, India and China. Civilization advanced more quickly when the environment required effort to get food from it, because anything that could reduce the labor cost improved your lot and could be the difference between starving or survival.

Conversely, many places where we see peoples who didn't advance, it usually wasn't because they couldn't, it was because they didn't need to. If you can get all the food you and your tribe needs to survive with just 20 hours a week of effort, why bother with all the "progress" that means longer days of work and not that much more to show for it?

Struggle breeds technological advancements and social cohesion. An easy life breeds stagnation and social dissolution into various bands each pursuing their own interests.

* The Sahara it didn't start becoming a desert until c. 3000 BC... roughly the same time Egypt began its climb to become one of the dominant bronze-age Mediterranean powers)

Quote from: Chris24601 on October 12, 2023, 09:13:13 AM

He said, and is correct, that the native tribes DID use the waterways for extensive trade, they just never used it to transport mass food stuffs or the like since the tribes were self-sufficient.

Wrong.  As they produced little that wasn't internally consumed there was no extensive trade.  Stone age production levels doesn't allow for it.

Now, rent an education

Quote from: jhkim on October 11, 2023, 03:23:27 PM
I think I had recently read GG&S when I wrote my old essay "Magic and Society in RPGs", and it shows similar thinking:

https://www.darkshire.net/jhkim/rpg/magic/magicandsociety.html

Neat, will have to check that out.  I just started a new fantasy campaign for Fabula Ultima and that may be a timely read.

Quote from: Naburimannu on October 12, 2023, 08:36:53 AM

Quote from: honeydipperdavid on October 11, 2023, 01:36:02 PM
... our ancestors in the old world had to domesticate bison and cattle ...

North America has the best navigable water ways in the world with ample access to salt and iron, the natives never built upon it.

They used the waterways for extensive trade networks, just like early Europeans. "The natives never built upon it" is pretty unclear.

And Europeans didn't domesticate the bison, they domesticated the aurochs; European bison survived in captivity when the wild ones were exterminated, and have since been reintroduced into the wild, but being captive in a zoo is not the same thing as domestication.

Its clear, Native Americans had extremely good opportunities by natural resources, animals and land and were not able to take advantage of them the same way the old world continents were able to exploit.  North America has the best position in the world from natural defense (oceans both sides), arable land with access to fresh water, navigable rivers for trade and moving agriculture and the same goes for bison.  Bison are mean, but any creature with selective breeding can be domesticated with time and willpower taking centuries.

The Aztecs, Mayans and Incans did develop fairly advanced technologies but again, didn't match Asia or the Middle East.  The food crops in the old world were incredibly caloric dense, potatoes being a wonder crop that saved many peasants in the old wold from starvation and famine.  A lot of Guns, Germs and Steel are post modern apologies for cultures that lacked innovation.  A better way of putting it was there was a larger population in the old world and they spent more time communicating advances which led to the rise of various cultures, not simply land resources.  Land resources counted for a lot, but so did the ability to share knowledge.   And it goes beyond communicating, it comes down to people willing to spend the time preparing for future generations with no benefit for themselves directly.

Quote from: Scooter on October 12, 2023, 09:16:50 AM

Quote from: Chris24601 on October 12, 2023, 09:13:13 AM

He said, and is correct, that the native tribes DID use the waterways for extensive trade, they just never used it to transport mass food stuffs or the like since the tribes were self-sufficient.

Wrong.  As they produced little that wasn't internally consumed there was no extensive trade.  Stone age production levels doesn't allow for it.

Now, rent an education

You seem to be assuming "extensive == bulk", when what we mean is "extensive == long-distance, high-value, many-nodes"

extensive
/ɪkˈstɛnsɪv,ɛkˈstɛnsɪv/
adjective
1.
covering or affecting a large area.

e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pre-Columbian_era - the people near St. Louis had trade relationships from the Great Lakes to the Gulf of Mexico, along the river.

Lest we get lost on a rabbit-hole of semantics: you seem to be claiming the argument in GGS doesn't hold water, the Americas had every resource they needed to invent far more advanced technology, they just didn't have the ideas. (Implicitly, weren't smart enough, individually or culturally.) Jared Diamond is a lot more convincing and better-supported than anything you've written in the thread so far.

Quote from: honeydipperdavid
Bison are mean, but any creature with selective breeding can be domesticated with time and willpower taking centuries.

Citation needed.

I suppose I could go all Popperian, ala Scooter himself, and point out that this isn't falsifiable. But there are plenty of creatures who are widely considered "not domesticatable".

Quote from: Naburimannu on October 12, 2023, 10:58:24 AM

Quote from: Scooter on October 12, 2023, 09:16:50 AM

Quote from: Chris24601 on October 12, 2023, 09:13:13 AM

He said, and is correct, that the native tribes DID use the waterways for extensive trade, they just never used it to transport mass food stuffs or the like since the tribes were self-sufficient.

Wrong.  As they produced little that wasn't internally consumed there was no extensive trade.  Stone age production levels doesn't allow for it.

Now, rent an education

You seem to be assuming "extensive == bulk", when what we mean is "extensive == long-distance, high-value, many-nodes"

extensive
/ɪkˈstɛnsɪv,ɛkˈstɛnsɪv/
adjective
1.
covering or affecting a large area.

e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pre-Columbian_era - the people near St. Louis had trade relationships from the Great Lakes to the Gulf of Mexico, along the river.

Lest we get lost on a rabbit-hole of semantics: you seem to be claiming the argument in GGS doesn't hold water, the Americas had every resource they needed to invent far more advanced technology, they just didn't have the ideas. (Implicitly, weren't smart enough, individually or culturally.) Jared Diamond is a lot more convincing and better-supported than anything you've written in the thread so far.

Quote from: honeydipperdavid
Bison are mean, but any creature with selective breeding can be domesticated with time and willpower taking centuries.

Citation needed.

I suppose I could go all Popperian, ala Scooter himself, and point out that this isn't falsifiable. But there are plenty of creatures who are widely considered "not domesticatable".

We are 50 year+ into the domestication proces of bison now.  They are being farmed.  The breeders are using selective breeding to increase meat production and to cut down on aggresiveness to make it easier to raise them.  You can go to downtown San Francisco and see Bison in the park right now.  Just because you don't like a statement, doesn't invalidate it.  Just search Bison Farm.  The smarter farmers are doing selective breeding with the better males to make their lives easier to deal with them.  That is the domestication process.  Did you never raise animals on a farm as a child?  Its a very easy process.  Dogs are great examples due genetic variability, they are very easy to breed for traits over a decade.  Their common ancestor to the wolf had that genetic variability and it was one of the reaons man kind was able to pick up domestication.  Bisons could have been turned into farm animals over centuries.  And yes, bison are assholes.

Quote from: honeydipperdavid on October 12, 2023, 11:05:27 AM
We are 50 year+ into the domestication proces of bison now.  They are being farmed.  The breeders are using selective breeding to increase meat production and to cut down on aggresiveness to make it easier to raise them.  You can go to downtown San Francisco and see Bison in the park right now.  Just because you don't like a statement, doesn't invalidate it.  Just search Bison Farm.

I posted on this earlier. First of all, the surviving bison in North America are all interbred with Eurasian cattle:

QuoteA new study published in the journal Scientific Reports has revealed the strongest evidence to date that all bison in North America carry multiple small, but clearly identifiable, regions of DNA that originated from domestic cattle.

Source: https://www.technologynetworks.com/genomics/news/strong-evidence-that-all-bison-in-north-america-originated-from-domestic-cattle-361470

Further, having animals in a paddock isn't the same as domestication. Zoos have wild animals in paddocks all the time. The real question is whether you could use buffalo to live by your house and use it to plow your land. And the answer is no, you can't.

The nature of the base wild animal makes a huge difference in how usefully domesticated it is. Dogs and cats have both been domesticated for thousands of years in Eurasia, but we have never had successfully trained cats for hunting and herding the way that dogs are. Bison are to cattle in much the way that cats are to dogs. Cattle are usefully domesticated to not just be meat, but to be useful in plowing, milking, and other utility. Bison have only been barely domesticated - and that was in part by cross-breeding them with Eurasian cattle.

---

Likewise, the base plants make a huge difference in crops used. Wheat was first domesticated 12,000 years ago from wild emmer in the Middle East. Corn was derived from teosinte - which is a more difficult leap. (Teosinte is so different, scientists couldn't identify it as the root of corn until the 1940s.) It was first domesticated 9,000 years ago. That's already a 3000 year gap.

But corn cultivation was only in Mesoamerica. It had nowhere to spread east-west -- while wheat quickly spread out from the Middle East east-west along Eurasia. Corn cultivation took much much longer to spread north-south, because it is difficult to adapt a crop to different climates.

---

If one looks at the state of the world at 0AD, it is clear that the leading Eurasian civilizations (Romans, Persians, Hindus, Chinese) had a massive lead over the Americas. They had already had millennia of writing, literature, architecture, ironworking, and other advances. Western and Northern Europe were relatively backwards, though, compared to these at the time. They had some advances over the Americas like iron, but those were almost entirely learned from elsewhere.

It seems pretty clear to me that all of the Eurasian civilizations along that east-west line leapfrogged off of each other, starting from the domestication of wheat.

Quote from: Naburimannu on October 12, 2023, 10:58:24 AM

You seem to be assuming "extensive == bulk", when what we mean is "extensive == long-distance, high-value, many-nodes"

Neither did they cover ANY large area.  There was no long distance trade routes.  It was almost all local.  Study the primary docs from those who first recorded what was there when they arrived from Europe.  Or, hadn't you thought of that?

Quote from: Scooter on October 13, 2023, 10:08:17 AM

Quote from: Naburimannu on October 12, 2023, 10:58:24 AM

You seem to be assuming "extensive == bulk", when what we mean is "extensive == long-distance, high-value, many-nodes"

Neither did they cover ANY large area.  There was no long distance trade routes.  It was almost all local.  Study the primary docs from those who first recorded what was there when they arrived from Europe.  Or, hadn't you thought of that?

This took me two minutes to find on the internet...

https://www.historyhaven.com/documents/trade_americas.pdf (https://www.historyhaven.com/documents/trade_americas.pdf)

You are, as you are so fond of saying, a "smooth brain."

ETA: this took me another few minutes, but still just an Internet search away.

https://arstechnica.com/science/2018/07/ancient-north-american-trade-networks-reached-farther-than-we-thought/ (https://arstechnica.com/science/2018/07/ancient-north-american-trade-networks-reached-farther-than-we-thought/)

There were instances of Clovis and pre-Clovis points found around the Great Lakes area using obsidian from the Oregon area.

So, either trade routes were used or people walked a lot more back then than now.

Quote from: LordBP on October 13, 2023, 12:30:56 PM
There were instances of Clovis and pre-Clovis points found around the Great Lakes area using obsidian from the Oregon area.

So, either trade routes were used or people walked a lot more back then than now.

There were no trade routes from the Pacific to the Great Lakes.  There WAS migration from WEST to EAST.  Hence the Oregon area obsidian points.

Quote from: Scooter on October 13, 2023, 12:33:39 PM

Quote from: LordBP on October 13, 2023, 12:30:56 PM
There were instances of Clovis and pre-Clovis points found around the Great Lakes area using obsidian from the Oregon area.

So, either trade routes were used or people walked a lot more back then than now.

There were no trade routes from the Pacific to the Great Lakes.  There WAS migration from WEST to EAST.  Hence the Oregon area obsidian points.

The city of Cahokia (close to modern St. Louis) had a population of about 15,000 centered on a 100-foot pyramid. It had many collections of seashells from the Gulf of Mexico, and copper that was from the Great Lakes region and worked into laminated artwork.

More broadly, archeology has revealed a lot of facts about the Americas that contradict the common narrative in the journals of early European explorers. Partly, the early explorers may have been biased - but also, it's important to realize that most European explorers were encountering post-apocalyptic survivors. Disease ran in advance of explorers and killed over 90% of the population and completely upended their way of life. Early theories about Cahokia had white people theorizing that giants or aliens had created the pyramids, since it clearly couldn't have been Indians.

I'd recommend the book 1491: New Revelations of the Americas before Columbus by Charles Mann (ref) (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1491:_New_Revelations_of_the_Americas_Before_Columbus), and also the video lecture series "Ancient Civilizations of North America" (ref) (https://www.thegreatcourses.com/courses/ancient-civilizations-of-north-america).

That said, it's absolutely true that North Americans had less developed society and technology compared to Mesoamerica or the Andes. The Incans had a network of highways and rope bridges across their vast empire. They had huge trade networks of textiles and pottery along with copper and gold. Their architecture and trade networks dwarf those of Cahokia. All of this is easily confirmed with archeology.

The question is why? Did the people of South America just choose to apply themselves, and the North Americans were lazy? Was Inti worship so much superior to Red Horn worship? I find Diamond's explanation about their environment to be a lot more compelling. North America had no high-yield crops until much later in their history, when corn was adapted to the northern climate.

Quote from: jhkim on October 13, 2023, 04:15:25 PM

Quote from: Scooter on October 13, 2023, 12:33:39 PM

Quote from: LordBP on October 13, 2023, 12:30:56 PM
There were instances of Clovis and pre-Clovis points found around the Great Lakes area using obsidian from the Oregon area.

So, either trade routes were used or people walked a lot more back then than now.

There were no trade routes from the Pacific to the Great Lakes.  There WAS migration from WEST to EAST.  Hence the Oregon area obsidian points.

The city of Cahokia (close to modern St. Louis) had a population of about 15,000 centered on a 100-foot pyramid. It had many collections of seashells from the Gulf of Mexico, and copper that was from the Great Lakes region and worked into laminated artwork.

More broadly, archeology has revealed a lot of facts about the Americas that contradict the common narrative in the journals of early European explorers. Partly, the early explorers may have been biased - but also, it's important to realize that most European explorers were encountering post-apocalyptic survivors. Disease ran in advance of explorers and killed over 90% of the population and completely upended their way of life. Early theories about Cahokia had white people theorizing that giants or aliens had created the pyramids, since it clearly couldn't have been Indians.

I'd recommend the book 1491: New Revelations of the Americas before Columbus by Charles Mann (ref) (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1491:_New_Revelations_of_the_Americas_Before_Columbus), and also the video lecture series "Ancient Civilizations of North America" (ref) (https://www.thegreatcourses.com/courses/ancient-civilizations-of-north-america).

That said, it's absolutely true that North Americans had less developed society and technology compared to Mesoamerica or the Andes. The Incans had a network of highways and rope bridges across their vast empire. They had huge trade networks of textiles and pottery along with copper and gold. Their architecture and trade networks dwarf those of Cahokia. All of this is easily confirmed with archeology.

The question is why? Did the people of South America just choose to apply themselves, and the North Americans were lazy? Was Inti worship so much superior to Red Horn worship? I find Diamond's explanation about their environment to be a lot more compelling. North America had no high-yield crops until much later in their history, when corn was adapted to the northern climate.

May have been some of the landscape altering from the glaciers and their melting with the flooding that would result down the river valley systems in the middle of the US.

Quote from: jhkim on October 13, 2023, 04:15:25 PM

Quote from: Scooter on October 13, 2023, 12:33:39 PM

Quote from: LordBP on October 13, 2023, 12:30:56 PM
There were instances of Clovis and pre-Clovis points found around the Great Lakes area using obsidian from the Oregon area.

So, either trade routes were used or people walked a lot more back then than now.

There were no trade routes from the Pacific to the Great Lakes.  There WAS migration from WEST to EAST.  Hence the Oregon area obsidian points.

The city of Cahokia (close to modern St. Louis) had a population of about 15,000 centered on a 100-foot pyramid. It had many collections of seashells from the Gulf of Mexico, and copper that was from the Great Lakes region and worked into laminated artwork.

More broadly, archeology has revealed a lot of facts about the Americas that contradict the common narrative in the journals of early European explorers. Partly, the early explorers may have been biased - but also, it's important to realize that most European explorers were encountering post-apocalyptic survivors. Disease ran in advance of explorers and killed over 90% of the population and completely upended their way of life. Early theories about Cahokia had white people theorizing that giants or aliens had created the pyramids, since it clearly couldn't have been Indians.

I'd recommend the book 1491: New Revelations of the Americas before Columbus by Charles Mann (ref) (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1491:_New_Revelations_of_the_Americas_Before_Columbus), and also the video lecture series "Ancient Civilizations of North America" (ref) (https://www.thegreatcourses.com/courses/ancient-civilizations-of-north-america).

That said, it's absolutely true that North Americans had less developed society and technology compared to Mesoamerica or the Andes. The Incans had a network of highways and rope bridges across their vast empire. They had huge trade networks of textiles and pottery along with copper and gold. Their architecture and trade networks dwarf those of Cahokia. All of this is easily confirmed with archeology.

The question is why? Did the people of South America just choose to apply themselves, and the North Americans were lazy? Was Inti worship so much superior to Red Horn worship? I find Diamond's explanation about their environment to be a lot more compelling. North America had no high-yield crops until much later in their history, when corn was adapted to the northern climate.

Greetings!

Good stuff, Jhkim! Yes, the North American Indians were less developed and organized than the civilizations throughout Central America and South America, much less than the Europeans, of course. Despite their primitive technology and simplistic organization--yes, they were making progress, changing, adapting, and innovating. Just at a slower pace than other cultures. The North American tribes did have long range, extensive trade networks, stretching from the Pacific Northwest to the Great Lakes, the Southwest, and everywhere in between. Fish, furs, beads, seashells, all kinds of products.

There are many documentaries and books that discuss how varied, and vibrant North American trade was. Anthropologists and Archaeologists have been teaching and talking about this kind of stuff for *decades* now. I was also introduced to some of this knowledge when I was in college. I had two different Anthropology professors that were experts in North American Indian cultures.

It does boggle the mind, of yes, what existed before the plagues annihilated 90% of the native tribal populations? What existed before the arrival of the Europeans, and what might have developed if such an encounter had not occurred? Smallpox, in particular, introduced by the arrival of the Europeans--was especially devastating to the Native Indian populations.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Quote from: SHARK on October 13, 2023, 07:38:54 PM

Quote from: jhkim on October 13, 2023, 04:15:25 PM

Quote from: Scooter on October 13, 2023, 12:33:39 PM
There were no trade routes from the Pacific to the Great Lakes.  There WAS migration from WEST to EAST.  Hence the Oregon area obsidian points.

I'd recommend the book 1491: New Revelations of the Americas before Columbus by Charles Mann (ref) (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1491:_New_Revelations_of_the_Americas_Before_Columbus), and also the video lecture series "Ancient Civilizations of North America" (ref) (https://www.thegreatcourses.com/courses/ancient-civilizations-of-north-america).

There are many documentaries and books that discuss how varied, and vibrant North American trade was. Anthropologists and Archaeologists have been teaching and talking about this kind of stuff for *decades* now. I was also introduced to some of this knowledge when I was in college. I had two different Anthropology professors that were experts in North American Indian cultures.

Good to hear, SHARK. Any suggestions of books for laypeople / gamers? I thought Charles Mann gave a very engaging and readable overview in his 1491 book, but it's not my field.

I've been thinking about a Savage Worlds swashbuckling-ish game set in medieval Cahokia at its height, so that would be my greatest interest personally, but other people might be interested in other time periods and regions.

QuoteThe problem with guns, germs and steel is that our ancestors in the old world had to domesticate bison and cattle.  North America had access to bison and could have started the domestication process, they never did.  North America has the best navigable water ways in the world with ample access to salt and iron, the natives never built upon it.  A better way of looking at it is one tribe had an ancestor who had an idea and followed through, the North American tribes did not.

QuoteAnd Europeans didn't domesticate the bison, they domesticated the aurochs; European bison survived in captivity when the wild ones were exterminated, and have since been reintroduced into the wild, but being captive in a zoo is not the same thing as domestication.

I'd point out that wisent or European bison was never domesticated properly just like his American counterpart.
Neither were European aurochs IIRC - cattle came generally from West Asian populations (Syria specifically) (now that I think of it aside of buffalo - all bovid domesticated animals came from same region).
I guess Mediterrean climate herds are more mellow. ;)

QuoteBison are mean, but any creature with selective breeding can be domesticated with time and willpower taking centuries.

Yes with modern level of technology.
With stone age level of technology - taming one of wildest and strongest bovids is gonna be basically impossible.

And due to geographical differences you lacked such intense hotspot of farming sheparding as our Middle-East-Anatolia.
Most proficient farming Americans lived thousands miles from suitable animals.

We have wild sheep living in warm climate in Eurasia, in smaller mountain ranges. In America sheeps and goats lived in much more severe places, and they never spread much further - because well - all Asia is great link of various bigger and smaller mountains - while America is build extremely different.

QuoteGood stuff, Jhkim! Yes, the North American Indians were less developed and organized than the civilizations throughout Central America and South America, much less than the Europeans, of course. Despite their primitive technology and simplistic organization--yes, they were making progress, changing, adapting, and innovating. Just at a slower pace than other cultures. The North American tribes did have long range, extensive trade networks, stretching from the Pacific Northwest to the Great Lakes, the Southwest, and everywhere in between. Fish, furs, beads, seashells, all kinds of products.

I'd note that despite spread of iron-warfare, the cultures of Northern Europe were also woefully underdeveloped until they decided to really dig Roman and Greek achievements.
Germanic people did it first, while Celts shunned it (maybe still remembering how once they bossed other people around as Iron Age warlords) - and well we can clearly see how Germanic based countries (including Romance ones) are faring compared to once mighty Celts. (And of course iron smelting also came from Mediterrean-Middle Eastern region).

His book is ideological, anti-scientific propaganda for the same reasons as Nazi academic works; he takes half of the equation, and makes the conclusions fit his preconception.

With the Nazi's (really any of the old-timey racial science) the preconception was that Aryans were genetically superior to every other race, so any factors such as geography or past disaster were ignored for a blanket "they were always going to be more primitive than us, because we're Ubermensch!"

With Diamond and his ilk of modern Western academics, Tabula Rasa is the lens everything MUST be viewed through.  All human groups are completely equal in capabilities and potential. So when you have one civilization with aeroplanes, and another still using spears, the explanation has to be completely environmental/some sabotage by the more advanced society.

Groups have observable differences in physical potentials, which we acknowledge, but the concept of difference in intellectual and social abilities are too scary to consider, so we bury them.  I understand why they're scary, but science is supposed to be courageous.

It's not like Asia, Europe and the Middle East didn't have environmental disasters and horrific warfare. Yet somehow groups in these regions advanced so beyond groups in other regions, to the point that advanced groups may as well have been aliens, or time travellers, from the less advanced groups POV.

Never read it. Wonder what REH would say on the matter, hyboria appears to be proto-ancient earth, with stygians and or vanir being proto-egyptians for example. If cimmerians had had a better environment would they have conquered aquilonia and nemedia?

I think anyone with at least one playthrough of a Civilization game would consider it self-evident that one's starting resources have a noticeable impact on how a society develops.  But several important hallmarks of societies that were necessary for success, such as writing, were developed separately in multiple places and didn't require any special abundance of crops or domestic animals.  Some people simply had a bright idea, and others didn't, and that's that.  Of course, proximity is a factor, because good ideas like writing spread through travelers and traders being exposed to it, but you still need someone with the will to act on it.  Written language spread throughout the Mediterranean area in next to no time, for example, but while the Mayans seem to have had writing over two millennia ago, it didn't really take to the groups living elsewhere in the Americas even though others must have been exposed to it.

Quote from: Slipshot762 on November 11, 2023, 06:28:50 PM
Never read it. Wonder what REH would say on the matter, hyboria appears to be proto-ancient earth, with stygians and or vanir being proto-egyptians for example. If cimmerians had had a better environment would they have conquered aquilonia and nemedia?

He's snigger at the news that a lot of post ww2 anthropological canon was disproved by modern genetics confirming that the anglo-saxon invasions did take place.
Then he'd probably shoot himself again.

QuoteIt's not like Asia, Europe and the Middle East didn't have environmental disasters and horrific warfare. Yet somehow groups in these regions advanced so beyond groups in other regions, to the point that advanced groups may as well have been aliens, or time travellers, from the less advanced groups POV.

Horrific warfare all things altogether usually encourages growth.
The difference does not lie in extraordinary events but in basic resources and geography.

Like come on, even from very racist perspective Native Americans came racially from mixture of East Asian stock and Native Siberian stock - and Siberians were main dominant group that later formed Indoeuropeans. They are basically same blood. Unless Asians had custom to banish only dumbasses through Beringia for many centuries, explanation based on biology simply won't work. Even remotely.

Quote from: Wrath of God on November 13, 2023, 07:01:24 PMHorrific warfare all things altogether usually encourages growth.
The difference does not lie in extraordinary events but in basic resources and geography.

Except some of the warfare in Europe, Middle East and Asia was at times so brutal that it set whole populations back. Europe had to rediscover everything it lost from the Dark Ages, not to mention events like the Hundred Years War draining countries white over multi generations.

Yes competition and cultural exchange tends to put pressures on peoples to advance, but there's something to be said for sitting pretty on an isolated landmass full of virgin resources.

Also The Americas had civilizations that warred on each other regularly, yet the military advances were rather limited. Europe and Asia were using siege engines thousands of years before contact with the Americas, yet when the Spaniards turned up with firearms, they didn't get crushed by mangonels or speared by ballistae.

Quote from: Wrath of God on November 13, 2023, 07:01:24 PMLike come on, even from very racist perspective Native Americans came racially from mixture of East Asian stock and Native Siberian stock - and Siberians were main dominant group that later formed Indoeuropeans. They are basically same blood. Unless Asians had custom to banish only dumbasses through Beringia for many centuries, explanation based on biology simply won't work. Even remotely.

This paragraph is so disingenuous and ideological I can't do anything with it.

A wolf and a Shi Tzu are so genetically related that they can interbreed (probably involving a footstool,) but a Shi Tzu raised in the forest is probably going to die, and a Wolf is never going to make a good lapdog for a granny.

What is it about humans that make us so different from canines? No-one really argues individuals don't have different strengths and weaknesses, but expand that to groups that were genetically distinct for tens of thousands of years, with different environmental pressures, and people freak out.

Maybe group A is 10 points smarter on average, and over thousands of years that makes a societal difference. Maybe group B has lower aggression, so over time they have a very stable civilization. Maybe C are on average a little larger and stronger, so tend to solve problems with brawn, and over time the society becomes warlike.

Of course environment has a massive effect. If Leonardo Da Vinci was born an Inuit, their hunting tech may have gotten an upgrade, but he wouldn't be building any blubber-powered machines.


Swinging this back around to RPG's, we actually see the concept in TTRPGs and CRPGs. Many games have different human groups with different physical stat bonuses.

Plenty of fantasy worlds replace fantasy races with difference flavors of human kingdoms. Some big hairy barbarians to replace Orcs, rainforest dwellers replace Elves, hardy mountain folk are the Dwarves, etc.


As far as the core question about using Guns, Germs and Steel as a guide for creating rpg worlds, I'd say no. As inspiration? Sure, as good as anything else for that. But I see nothing uniquely useful about it as a resource, because I find it's conclusions to be hokey.

Quote from: Valatar on November 12, 2023, 01:26:45 AM
I think anyone with at least one playthrough of a Civilization game would consider it self-evident that one's starting resources have a noticeable impact on how a society develops.  But several important hallmarks of societies that were necessary for success, such as writing, were developed separately in multiple places and didn't require any special abundance of crops or domestic animals.  Some people simply had a bright idea, and others didn't, and that's that.  Of course, proximity is a factor, because good ideas like writing spread through travelers and traders being exposed to it, but you still need someone with the will to act on it.  Written language spread throughout the Mediterranean area in next to no time, for example, but while the Mayans seem to have had writing over two millennia ago, it didn't really take to the groups living elsewhere in the Americas even though others must have been exposed to it.

Written language originated in Sumer in 3400 BC. It also appeared in Egypt within a few centuries by 3200 BC. But the earliest Greek writing was 800 BC, over two and a half millennia later. The earliest writing in Spain wasn't until 400 BC or so, France until 200 BC, and Britain until 40 AD. So it's a stretch to say that it spread in "next to no time".

You suggest that writing doesn't require a special abundance of crops -- but that makes this timeline weird. Why would writing only develop in the Middle East exactly where wheat developed? Even with indirect contact with the Middle East, Western Europe took three millennia to develop their own writing.

I'd say that writing isn't useful unless you have a civilization that can take advantage of it -- like a specialized class of scholars. A hunter-gatherer tribe with writing has basically zero advantage over an illiterate hunter-gatherer tribe, and the same for early farmers. Without an extensive class of scholars, it's easier to teach by word of mouth. A civilization needs stable, high-yield farming to have enough manpower to spare to support that class.

Quote from: jhkim on November 13, 2023, 09:16:21 PMWritten language originated in Sumer in 3400 BC. It also appeared in Egypt within a few centuries by 3200 BC. But the earliest Greek writing was 800 BC, over two and a half millennia later. The earliest writing in Spain wasn't until 400 BC or so, France until 200 BC, and Britain until 40 AD. So it's a stretch to say that it spread in "next to no time".

Crete was using Linear A as far back as 1800 BC.

Quote from: Grognard GM on November 13, 2023, 09:30:34 PM

Quote from: jhkim on November 13, 2023, 09:16:21 PMWritten language originated in Sumer in 3400 BC. It also appeared in Egypt within a few centuries by 3200 BC. But the earliest Greek writing was 800 BC, over two and a half millennia later. The earliest writing in Spain wasn't until 400 BC or so, France until 200 BC, and Britain until 40 AD. So it's a stretch to say that it spread in "next to no time".

Crete was using Linear A as far back as 1800 BC.

Agreed. Compared to Sumer, writing appeared after a few centuries in Egypt, after 1600 years on Crete, and after 2600 years on mainland Greece and Italy. I think that still supports my point that it did not spread in "next to no time" like Valatar claims.

Valatar suggests that writing didn't spread from Mesoamerica over two millennia because "you still need someone with the will to act on it". The question is -- why did no one in Greece or Italy have the will to act on it for millennia? It seems to me that it's not about distance -- it's about the state of the rest of society - and that fits better with the hypothesis from Guns, Germs, and Steel.

The environment affects evolution, including human evolution, including cultural evolution. So eg central Asians came up with a lot of important innovations.

Diamond GGS is useful I think for thinking about the environment and how it affects the people in it. You can't domestic horses if your ancestors ate all the horses.

Quote from: Valatar on November 12, 2023, 01:26:45 AM
I think anyone with at least one playthrough of a Civilization game would consider it self-evident that one's starting resources have a noticeable impact on how a society develops..

In the real world a civilization can copy things others developed (at least to a point). If one sees the value in those techs. Think Japan that played a world class game of catch-up.

QuoteIn the real world a civilization can copy things others developed (at least to a point). If one sees the value in those techs. Think Japan that played a world class game of catch-up.

Correct. And fact that there was quite consistent line of civilisations from China to Europe was mutual advantage for all members of this meta-community. Japan hinder itself for some time by unhealthy isolationism.

But of course that Eurasian possibility - Grognard says: "Except some of the warfare in Europe, Middle East and Asia was at times so brutal that it set whole populations back. Europe had to rediscover everything it lost from the Dark Ages, not to mention events like the Hundred Years War draining countries white over multi generations." - but that's not really true. Not only such calamities were local - Dark Ages hit West, but Byzantine Empire was quite solid all this time, and Byzantine + remains of Roman civilisations allowed soon for Carolingian Reneissance. Bronze Age Collapse was terrible - but it hit just chunk of Eurasian Civilisation Zone, maybe more prestigous one, but ultimately not whole.

And those civilisations on this string were able to quite fast (due to horses) pass knowledge from one end to another. Sure it was not lighting fast, but it was quite fast.
America well is not that good - the zone of Meditterean-like climate, crucial for development of Eurasian power farming looked very different. Climate was very different in continental scope.
And of course they had hindrace of exploring utterly new continent and slowling getting some roots there, while their ancestors in Eurasia were much more familiar with whole thing.

And even then it was bunch of guys from basically one region that made crucial developments for farming and husbandry - but with Eurasia being wide those could travel wide.
Meanwhile where natives of Mexico could sent their achievements of building garden-cities in desert-mountainous climate? To praire which is utterly different enviroment? As was said - they would have to spread up - as their technology was strongly based on mountainous area and it's water as resource - but that meant long time of adapting their cropses to different latitudes.

History happens. Geography certainly affects it. But you don't need to read GGS to do plausible worldbuilding based on that. The mapmaking appendix in the Wilderness Survival Guide, later republished in a 2e campaign guide, gives you all you really need:

Rivers are great natural boundaries. So are deserts and mountain ranges.

Cultures on the opposite sides of significant natural barriers tend to have less contact with each other.

Cultures close to each other tend to war a lot.

Cities are usually on the shoreline, or on rivers. Rivers make great natural "highways" (speaking figuratively). So do the seas/oceans.

More principles are kind of obvious, but those should get you started. If you want extensive rules for crop yields and economics and trade between geographic areas, I'm reliably informed that "ACKS does that." and ACKS II is in Kickstarter right now.

Quote from: MeganovaStella on October 07, 2023, 07:31:24 PM
If you were to use Guns, Germs, and Steel in your worldbuilding, or you do, how would/how do you use it?

Quote from: MeganovaStella on October 07, 2023, 07:31:24 PM
If you were to use Guns, Germs, and Steel in your worldbuilding, or you do, how would/how do you use it?

To anyone that doesn't know that GGS is: it's basically a paper suggesting that geography and climate, not innate ability, affects the development of human civilization. The Native Americans weren't inferior because they couldn't build a civilization with iron working, gunpowder, and astronomy, they just had bad geography and little to no domesticable animals. If you put the whitest people in Pre-Columbian America, they would face the same problems. In Diamond's view, whether you can achieve Eurasian levels of civilization by the 11,500th year after developing agriculture  (10,000 BCE + 11,500 = 1500 CE) depends on

- if your continent is longer than it is tall
- if you have anything to domesticate
- if your crops have good yield and are easy to grow


Of note is the explanation for Europe's division- the fractured land theory. https://www.sas.upenn.edu/~jesusfv/Fractured_Land.pdf which has been supported by a simulation.

I don't understand why llamas, such as lama glama, couldn't be bred to be larger. Horses in the early phases of domestication were small, timid, and difficult to work with, but were selectively bred over time. Perhaps native Americans could have managed to domesticate caribou? It has been elsewhere. On the other hand, what was realistically stopping ancient Americans from mastering metallurgy, even copper smithing? Otzi had copper tools and weapons well prior to anything taller than a goat being domesticated in his region. There were and still are all kinds of amazing animals native to the Americas. These are more questions than anything, but there seems to be some major holes.

Quote from: RulesLiteOSRpls on November 22, 2023, 05:29:15 AM
I don't understand why llamas, such as lama glama, couldn't be bred to be larger. Horses in the early phases of domestication were small, timid, and difficult to work with, but were selectively bred over time. Perhaps native Americans could have managed to domesticate caribou? It has been elsewhere. On the other hand, what was realistically stopping ancient Americans from mastering metallurgy, even copper smithing? Otzi had copper tools and weapons well prior to anything taller than a goat being domesticated in his region. There were and still are all kinds of amazing animals native to the Americas. These are more questions than anything, but there seems to be some major holes.

Domesticated llamas are around 290 to 440 pounds - which is about 25% larger than their wild cousins the guanaco. I'm not sure about the size change of the domesticated horse. As far as I know, the closest we have to pre-domesticated horses are Przewalski's horse and Tarpan's horse (below).

(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/18/Kherson_tarpan.jpg)

These articles on horse domestication have a lot of recent DNA and archeological evidence.

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/when-did-humans-domesticate-the-horse-180980097/

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-021-04018-9

QuoteHorses were a late addition to the barnyard. Dogs were domesticated 15,000 years ago; sheep, pigs and cattle, about 8,000 to 11,000 years ago. But clear evidence of horse domestication doesn't appear in the archaeological record until about 5,500 years ago.

QuoteHere we pinpoint the Western Eurasian steppes, especially the lower Volga-Don region, as the homeland of modern domestic horses. Furthermore, we map the population changes accompanying domestication from 273 ancient horse genomes. This reveals that modern domestic horses ultimately replaced almost all other local populations as they expanded rapidly across Eurasia from about 2000 BC, synchronously with equestrian material culture, including Sintashta spoke-wheeled chariots.

Note the huge differences in time periods for domestication, and that modern horses may have come from a single domestication event. Interestingly, it seems like Przewalski's horse was domesticated at Botai in Central Asia, but that didn't continue. Instead, a different wild species was domesticated (equus caballus) that took over, and Przewalski's horse became wild again.

I think all this suggests that animal domestication can be quite difficult. The only animals domesticated in Europe were the goose and the reindeer (and possibly the dog that was also domesticated elsewhere). Despite their access to many other animals, Europeans got all their other domesticated animals from the East.

---

With metallurgy, like with writing as discussed earlier, what comes up is why Western and Northern Europeans were so backwards and primitive. Why couldn't the Europeans invent anything prior to the modern age? Almost all the important inventions - like writing, iron-working, and more -- they got by contact with the Middle East and Asia where there were wheat fields. For thousands of years, the Middle East was far more advanced than Northern and Western Europe. It wasn't until the medieval period that Northern and Western Europe became on par.

This supports Diamond's hypothesis that these advances depended on having enough food surplus from high-yield grain to support a sedentary class of people with time to work on these things. There was a long gap before wheat farming in Western and Northern Europe to be as successful as where it originated. There could be another hypothesis, but it would have to explain this shifting imbalance.

Quote from: jhkim on November 22, 2023, 12:51:47 PM

Quote from: RulesLiteOSRpls on November 22, 2023, 05:29:15 AM
I don't understand why llamas, such as lama glama, couldn't be bred to be larger. Horses in the early phases of domestication were small, timid, and difficult to work with, but were selectively bred over time. Perhaps native Americans could have managed to domesticate caribou? It has been elsewhere. On the other hand, what was realistically stopping ancient Americans from mastering metallurgy, even copper smithing? Otzi had copper tools and weapons well prior to anything taller than a goat being domesticated in his region. There were and still are all kinds of amazing animals native to the Americas. These are more questions than anything, but there seems to be some major holes.

Domesticated llamas are around 290 to 440 pounds - which is about 25% larger than their wild cousins the guanaco. I'm not sure about the size change of the domesticated horse. As far as I know, the closest we have to pre-domesticated horses are Przewalski's horse and Tarpan's horse (below).

(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/18/Kherson_tarpan.jpg)

These articles on horse domestication have a lot of recent DNA and archeological evidence.

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/when-did-humans-domesticate-the-horse-180980097/

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-021-04018-9

QuoteHorses were a late addition to the barnyard. Dogs were domesticated 15,000 years ago; sheep, pigs and cattle, about 8,000 to 11,000 years ago. But clear evidence of horse domestication doesn't appear in the archaeological record until about 5,500 years ago.

QuoteHere we pinpoint the Western Eurasian steppes, especially the lower Volga-Don region, as the homeland of modern domestic horses. Furthermore, we map the population changes accompanying domestication from 273 ancient horse genomes. This reveals that modern domestic horses ultimately replaced almost all other local populations as they expanded rapidly across Eurasia from about 2000 BC, synchronously with equestrian material culture, including Sintashta spoke-wheeled chariots.

Note the huge differences in time periods for domestication, and that modern horses may have come from a single domestication event. Interestingly, it seems like Przewalski's horse was domesticated at Botai in Central Asia, but that didn't continue. Instead, a different wild species was domesticated (equus caballus) that took over, and Przewalski's horse became wild again.

I think all this suggests that animal domestication can be quite difficult. The only animals domesticated in Europe were the goose and the reindeer (and possibly the dog that was also domesticated elsewhere). Despite their access to many other animals, Europeans got all their other domesticated animals from the East.

---

With metallurgy, like with writing as discussed earlier, what comes up is why Western and Northern Europeans were so backwards and primitive. Why couldn't the Europeans invent anything prior to the modern age? Almost all the important inventions - like writing, iron-working, and more -- they got by contact with the Middle East and Asia where there were wheat fields. For thousands of years, the Middle East was far more advanced than Northern and Western Europe. It wasn't until the medieval period that Northern and Western Europe became on par.

This supports Diamond's hypothesis that these advances depended on having enough food surplus from high-yield grain to support a sedentary class of people with time to work on these things. There was a long gap before wheat farming in Western and Northern Europe to be as successful as where it originated. There could be another hypothesis, but it would have to explain this shifting imbalance.

Wait a minute there, what do you mean by modern age and by invention?

Gutenberg is "modern age"? Sure he didn't invent the printing press, he "just" invented the movable type.

1344 the mechanical clock

The Screw was invented by the greeks

Tidal Mills.

The Spring Pole Lathe (later to be used with river wheels and latter still with steam)

Quote from: GeekyBugle on November 22, 2023, 02:44:05 PM
The Screw was invented by the greeks

How was reproduction done before that?

QuoteI don't understand why llamas, such as lama glama, couldn't be bred to be larger. Horses in the early phases of domestication were small, timid, and difficult to work with, but were selectively bred over time. Perhaps native Americans could have managed to domesticate caribou? It has been elsewhere. On the other hand, what was realistically stopping ancient Americans from mastering metallurgy, even copper smithing? Otzi had copper tools and weapons well prior to anything taller than a goat being domesticated in his region. There were and still are all kinds of amazing animals native to the Americas. These are more questions than anything, but there seems to be some major holes.

Llamas are mountain animals - both species are. And they were exploited for those qualities perfectly. But they never lived in Pampa proper region - closest to steppe part of South America (much smaller than equivalents on other continents). So they were domesticated by American highlanders for mountain lifestyle purposes - for good wool, and larger size. And that allowed Inka for quite unprecendted geographical range in their continent.

But camels (to which lama belongs) due to different built will not replace horse in terms of fast movement.

Now about Otzi - Otzi was neolithic farmer. His people in Ancient Anatolia had cattle, millenia before starting to mine copper. Otzi himself didn't because he lived in region where cattle herding was very hard so goats and sheep were used. Generally in mountainous regions you have more goats and sheep, right. But he definitely belonged to wider civilisation that knew cattle.

Also some tribes used limited metallurgy like copper and gold. But without method of quick transport - such discoveries did not spread fast. Especially since ore access was very accidental - from place to place. Just like Chalcolithic Age was much less coherent in copper access - because it was pre-horse so there are regions in Eurasia that totally missed it. But later horses appear and soon after them Bronze Age spread like wildfire because horse is quite unique as Fast Travel mode. Really quite unique. Definitely not easily replacable by bisons.

QuoteHow was reproduction done before that?

no no reproduction was done only after Romans discovered that you can Screw not only bois.

Quote from: BadApple on November 22, 2023, 03:03:49 PM

Quote from: GeekyBugle on November 22, 2023, 02:44:05 PM
The Screw was invented by the greeks

How was reproduction done before that?

A piece of meat was run up a flagpole, then good humors were attracted, and 9 months later you'd catch your baby in a net.

Quote from: GeekyBugle on November 22, 2023, 02:44:05 PM

Quote from: jhkim on November 22, 2023, 12:51:47 PM
With metallurgy, like with writing as discussed earlier, what comes up is why Western and Northern Europeans were so backwards and primitive. Why couldn't the Europeans invent anything prior to the modern age? Almost all the important inventions - like writing, iron-working, and more -- they got by contact with the Middle East and Asia where there were wheat fields. For thousands of years, the Middle East was far more advanced than Northern and Western Europe. It wasn't until the medieval period that Northern and Western Europe became on par.

This supports Diamond's hypothesis that these advances depended on having enough food surplus from high-yield grain to support a sedentary class of people with time to work on these things. There was a long gap before wheat farming in Western and Northern Europe to be as successful as where it originated. There could be another hypothesis, but it would have to explain this shifting imbalance.

Wait a minute there, what do you mean by modern age and by invention?

Gutenberg is "modern age"? Sure he didn't invent the printing press, he "just" invented the movable type.

1344 the mechanical clock

The Screw was invented by the greeks

Tidal Mills.

The Spring Pole Lathe (later to be used with river wheels and latter still with steam)

Sorry about being unclear, I wasn't being technical there. To be specific, I'd say it was around 1000 CE that Western and Northern Europe started to make their own advances, rather than just copying or modifying inventions from the Middle East and Mediterranean. I should have said "modern and mid-to-late medieval".

Greeks and Romans aren't Western and Northern European.

In the bigger picture, if we start from advances like domestication of wheat in 10,000BC; domestication of cattle in 8000BC, and writing in 3400BC -- the vast majority of those advances happened along the line of the Middle East, Mediterranean, India, and China. If the Western and Europeans had some genetic or cultural superiority, why didn't it start to show until the medieval period?

Quote from: jhkim on November 22, 2023, 05:49:33 PM
In the bigger picture, if we start from advances like domestication of wheat in 10,000BC; domestication of cattle in 8000BC, and writing in 3400BC -- the vast majority of those advances happened along the line of the Middle East, Mediterranean, India, and China. If the Western and Europeans had some genetic or cultural superiority, why didn't it start to show until the medieval period?

I mean Europe was experiencing an Ice Age till 9,500 BC, then waves of settlers spread out through the landmass over thousands of years. Meanwhile those other places you mention were stable and settled.

How about the fact that Western Europeans, despite being way behind other civilizations by thousands of years, incredibly quickly rose to total international dominance, militarily and technologically, completely overshadowing the ancient civilizations?

Those same European civilizations only lost dominance by warring on each other in two massive wars, and a former European colony took over global dominance.

So flipping your question, how come they did so well after such a slow start?

Quite often you need an advance in one field to allow another. And you need abundant relevant resources. For example, famously steam being able to propel something was known thousands of years ago, but it couldn't do much good until steel was invented which could contain a lot of steam, and that required access to large amounts of coal, both to make the steel and produce enough heat to make the steam. And the steel being invented needed to be malleted into plates, which wasn't going to happen unless there was a lot of iron available - why make one boiler when you can make 50 plate cuirass, why make a plate cuirass when you can make 50 spears, and so on.

Take this, and add some chance to it, too. If there's a 50-50 chance of a particular invention popping up every 20 years, but for it to do anything you need a second invention, it's now only a 1/4 chance of it popping up in 20 years, you need some more years to improve your chances. And if you need 3 things, it's a 1/8 chance.

As well, different events play into each-other. Moveable type helped lead to the Reformation - you can't have a personal relationship with God and make your own judgements about the supernatural world if you can't afford a copy of the bible. But the Reformation was a mostly urban affair, and urban populations had only grown because of the Black Death wiping out a good chunk of Europe a century before. A city of 1,000 people isn't going to produce many revolutionary groups, a city of 100,000 many more. And the Reformation was in large part a response to the greed of the Popes, which was stoked up by the gold coming from the New World. So without sailing ships and the Black Death there's no Reformation.

Diamond has some interesting ideas, but like many writers - such as the authours of the WEIRD book (https://www.amazon.com/WEIRDest-People-World-Psychologically-Particularly/dp/0374173222) - wants to explain everything about humanity and human history with just one factor. And of course, the real world is more complicated than that.

Quote from: Grognard GM on November 22, 2023, 07:32:32 PM

Quote from: jhkim on November 22, 2023, 05:49:33 PM
In the bigger picture, if we start from advances like domestication of wheat in 10,000BC; domestication of cattle in 8000BC, and writing in 3400BC -- the vast majority of those advances happened along the line of the Middle East, Mediterranean, India, and China. If the Western and Europeans had some genetic or cultural superiority, why didn't it start to show until the medieval period?

I mean Europe was experiencing an Ice Age till 9,500 BC, then waves of settlers spread out through the landmass over thousands of years. Meanwhile those other places you mention were stable and settled.

How about the fact that Western Europeans, despite being way behind other civilizations by thousands of years, incredibly quickly rose to total international dominance, militarily and technologically, completely overshadowing the ancient civilizations?

Those same European civilizations only lost dominance by warring on each other in two massive wars, and a former European colony took over global dominance.

So flipping your question, how come they did so well after such a slow start?

Sure, it's a good question. The problem is that it's hard to compare. Diamond has an appendix on this in GG&S. It's not part of the main book. I remember found his theories in the appendix more shaky, though I'm not sure would I do them justice. With ancient through medieval history, it's easier to do comparison of different regions with each other. i.e. How did bronze smelting progress in China compared to bronze smelting in the Mediterranean? How do different math systems compare? However, the Scientific and Industrial Revolutions were singular, and they had global effects.

For ancient through medieval history, Diamond's main thesis is that the East-West exchange axis of Eurasia was an enormous advantage, with a lot of data to show that exchanging crops, livestock, and other ideas between different civilizations along there made a huge difference. The exchange means getting access to new advances that build on each other -- domesticated species as well as religious, technical, and social advances.

From late antiquity through the medieval period to 1500, the different Eurasian civilizations seesaw past each other. There are a lot of small factors about when each of Egypt, Greece, Rome, Persia, India, or China are advancing fastest. But for a while, all these civilizations are in the same ballpark as each other. Rome is more advanced than China in 0CE, but China is more advanced in 1000CE. Still, all of them are clearly ahead of sub-Saharan Africa, Central Asia, Australia, Polynesia, and the Americas - which aren't on that East-West axis.

The point where Western Europe really starts to leap ahead is after 1500CE, which is just after they begin to colonize the Americas. That's clearly not a coincidence. The massive influx of new species, ideas, and resources from the Americas into England and Spain were a game-changer -- just as the East-West exchange along Eurasia was a game-changer during the ancient period. Corn, potatoes, chocolate, gold, silver, furs, rubber, and more drove a lot of changes and innovation in European society. It's not just the items themselves, but change and resources drive further innovation. As to why Western Europe was able to capitalize on the Americas compared to other civilizations:

1) It is the closest to the Americas. They are on the edge of the Atlantic, and the Atlantic is less than a third the width of the Pacific.

2) Simply from their coastline, Western Europe would naturally be more of a seagoing civilization. They progressed from navigating the Mediterranean to managing along the Atlantic coast, and eventually through the Baltic and then across the Atlantic. One can access all through Europe by going around by ocean -- while the Asian coastline is much less lumpy.

There are many other factors, of course. Why was English civilization more dominant than Spanish, for example? That isn't explained by this. But I think it's clear the Columbian Exchange made a huge difference.

Quote from: jhkim on November 22, 2023, 05:49:33 PM

Quote from: GeekyBugle on November 22, 2023, 02:44:05 PM

Quote from: jhkim on November 22, 2023, 12:51:47 PM
With metallurgy, like with writing as discussed earlier, what comes up is why Western and Northern Europeans were so backwards and primitive. Why couldn't the Europeans invent anything prior to the modern age? Almost all the important inventions - like writing, iron-working, and more -- they got by contact with the Middle East and Asia where there were wheat fields. For thousands of years, the Middle East was far more advanced than Northern and Western Europe. It wasn't until the medieval period that Northern and Western Europe became on par.

This supports Diamond's hypothesis that these advances depended on having enough food surplus from high-yield grain to support a sedentary class of people with time to work on these things. There was a long gap before wheat farming in Western and Northern Europe to be as successful as where it originated. There could be another hypothesis, but it would have to explain this shifting imbalance.

Wait a minute there, what do you mean by modern age and by invention?

Gutenberg is "modern age"? Sure he didn't invent the printing press, he "just" invented the movable type.

1344 the mechanical clock

The Screw was invented by the greeks

Tidal Mills.

The Spring Pole Lathe (later to be used with river wheels and latter still with steam)

Sorry about being unclear, I wasn't being technical there. To be specific, I'd say it was around 1000 CE that Western and Northern Europe started to make their own advances, rather than just copying or modifying inventions from the Middle East and Mediterranean. I should have said "modern and mid-to-late medieval".

Greeks and Romans aren't Western and Northern European.

In the bigger picture, if we start from advances like domestication of wheat in 10,000BC; domestication of cattle in 8000BC, and writing in 3400BC -- the vast majority of those advances happened along the line of the Middle East, Mediterranean, India, and China. If the Western and Europeans had some genetic or cultural superiority, why didn't it start to show until the medieval period?

So you think the muslims invented Algebra without taking knowledge from others? Sorry but invention does include improving upon older knowledge or else all have to start from scratch, can't even know how to speak else your'e already using something you didn't invent.

LOL, if you bothered to read my previous posts in this thread you'd see me arguing FOR the thesis in GG&S, which is a clearly anti genetic superiority one.

No, the Europeans weren't or are genetically superior, so how come they managed to do all the stuff they did coming from behind everybody else?

I'll give you a few clues:

Islam became the worst religion, plunging it's followers into a perpetual obscurantism by rejecting all other philosophies not born from their "holy" book.

China closed itself.

Lots of small neighboring nations making war to each other gave an impulse to innovation

The patrons giving money to artists (which included Leonardo DaVinci)

Quote from: GeekyBugle on November 23, 2023, 01:20:50 PM

Quote from: jhkim on November 22, 2023, 05:49:33 PM
In the bigger picture, if we start from advances like domestication of wheat in 10,000BC; domestication of cattle in 8000BC, and writing in 3400BC -- the vast majority of those advances happened along the line of the Middle East, Mediterranean, India, and China. If the Western Europeans had some genetic or cultural superiority, why didn't it start to show until the medieval period?

So you think the muslims invented Algebra without taking knowledge from others? Sorry but invention does include improving upon older knowledge or else all have to start from scratch, can't even know how to speak else your'e already using something you didn't invent.

LOL, if you bothered to read my previous posts in this thread you'd see me arguing FOR the thesis in GG&S, which is a clearly anti genetic superiority one.

I'm not sure how we're disagreeing. Of course inventions build on each other. All of the Eurasian civilizations learned from each other. But that doesn't answer the question of why some Eurasian peoples advanced faster than others - and in particular, how the Mediterranean, Middle East, India, and China are all on an East-West line.

It's not about distance. There is a huge distance between these cultures -- much greater than the distance from the Mediterranean from the rest of Europe.

The thesis from GG&S is about external factors -- especially geography along with domesticatable grains and animals. Most importantly, higher yield grains (like wheat) is a huge difference from other farming. High yield grain farming means that a farming civilization has much more food surplus, and can support has a large class of scholars who aren't focused on food production, who work on further developments. However, there are only a handful of possible wild plants that can produce this high-yield grain farming. Once discovered, this farming will pass East-West quickly, but is very slow to adapt North-South because of the different climate. The Middle East had wild emmer that was easily adapted to high-yield wheat.

According to this thesis, Western and Northern Europeans had access to writing and other inventions that were relatively close geographically to the south, but they couldn't make use of them, because their farming didn't yield enough surplus to support a scholarly class. Their advancement depended on adapting Middle Eastern grains to the very different non-Mediterranean climate, which took vastly longer.

---

Quote from: GeekyBugle on November 23, 2023, 01:20:50 PM
No, the Europeans weren't or are genetically superior, so how come they managed to do all the stuff they did coming from behind everybody else?

I'll give you a few clues:

Islam became the worst religion, plunging it's followers into a perpetual obscurantism by rejecting all other philosophies not born from their "holy" book.

China closed itself.

Lots of small neighboring nations making war to each other gave an impulse to innovation

The patrons giving money to artists (which included Leonardo DaVinci)

These are mostly internal and descriptive rather than external influences. I don't broadly disagree about the description. The Islamic Golden Age (622CE - 1258CE) saw incredible intellectual achievements, but it ended and the later Islamic countries were much less innovative. The question is what factors lead to this change?

I would note that desertification and climate were very significant in the region. What is now Iraq was once known as the Fertile Crescent, whose lush river plains were bursting with food surplus. However, by the modern era, the Middle East is mostly desert. Iraq is a net food importer. I think it's clear that this will have an effect on the civilization there. Without food surplus, the scholar class are seen as a wasteful luxury rather than glorious leaders.

---

There is also an external factor in China closing compared to Western Europe opening. China engaged in trade with Japan and into the South Seas. China discovered and mapped much of the Australian coast in the 1420s, for example. But the return on investment was miniscule. There was essentially nothing in Australia that was of use to China. It had nearly no civilization, and it wasn't arable for Chinese farmers.

By comparison, Western Europe instantly saw massive return-on-investment from its conquest of the Americas. Gold and silver poured in. Corn and potatoes quickly became staples of European diet, along with popular foods like chocolate. There was massive open land because of the plagues that killed 90% or more of Native Americans - and that land was of a similar latitude and close by.

I posit that history might have gone very differently if the geography were different. Specifically, what if the Americas were tilted to be much closer to China, and the Atlantic was three times larger, and the Pacific three times narrower? China contacts the Americas in the 1400s, encountering the Aztecs and the Incans, and creates colonies on the West Coast. China would not have closed off. They would most certainly have taken advantage and raced to conquer and exploit this new land. The Ming rulers of the 1400s had no problem with exploiting and conquering when it benefited them. Japan would have competed as well, of course.

I think that would have made a major difference in the progress of history, not just in terms of American history - but in terms of how Europe and Asia developed. Within Asia, the competition and wars over new resources would have driven new changes. I'm don't think that Western Europe would be as dominant over Asia as happened in the historical 1600s.

Quote from: jhkim on November 23, 2023, 01:33:28 AM
The point where Western Europe really starts to leap ahead is after 1500CE, which is just after they begin to colonize the Americas. That's clearly not a coincidence.

Not a coincidence, but maybe not all in the way you're thinking. It only happened once Europe had advanced nautically to have ocean-going vessels. Europe had an amazingly innovative and outgoing culture at the time. After all, it wasn't access to raw resources that led to Newon and Leibnitz inventing calculus. Around 1500, Copernicus was creating his heliocentric model. And that's the problem: separating cause and effect. The finding of the Americas undoubtedly boosted Europe, but how much was it also a symptom of Europe already leaping ahead?

Quote from: jhkim on November 23, 2023, 01:33:28 AM
1) It is the closest to the Americas. They are on the edge of the Atlantic, and the Atlantic is less than a third the width of the Pacific.

Europe is further from the Americas than either Asia or Africa is. The Bering straight is tiny. You might complain that it's really far north, but let's not forget that Europeans had already found a way to the Americas via Iceland and Greenland. And the gap from Africa to the Americas is smaller and along more hospitable climes, with Muslim cultures along the west coast of Africa which were part of the east-west knowledge exchange. If distance is so important, why didn't they get there first? Ironically, part of the reason was Muslims sitting on the east-west trade routes, driving the Europeans to head west to reach the Indies.

Quote from: jhkim on November 23, 2023, 01:33:28 AM
2) Simply from their coastline, Western Europe would naturally be more of a seagoing civilization. They progressed from navigating the Mediterranean to managing along the Atlantic coast, and eventually through the Baltic and then across the Atlantic. One can access all through Europe by going around by ocean -- while the Asian coastline is much less lumpy.

There's a lot of Asia that's inland, and nobody is wondering why the Mongols didn't reach the Americas first. But much of Asia is coastal. Not just places like Japan, but even today, the vast majority of China's population is near the coast, even if its landmass isn't. So I don't buy that bit of geography holding them back. And once more, if we look at Europe, Africa and Asia:

1) they all have sizeable Mediterranean coasts
2) Africa and Asia each border 2 oceans (not counting the less-hospitable Southern and Arctic)
3) the Red Sea and Indian Ocean were (and still are) incredibly important and well-used sea-ways for both Asia and Africa

So although geography makes a difference, I still think that culture plays a big part.

Storms, you're forgetting storms, saved the Japanese in 4 occasions I think.

But you're correct on the Muslims being an obstacle the European nations wanted to avoid.

As for culture... Culture is shaped by the environment too, the foods you eat, the rituals you have are all a product of your environment.

The Tibethans never became sailors, wonder why
The Inuit never had a Sun God, because? Their environment
All cultures as far as I know had some type of alcoholic beverage, but not all cultures used allucigenic fungus as part of their rituals, once again environment shapping the culture.
The Aztecs knew the wheel, as proven by some toys, yet they never used it to move cargo, because of their environment.

Quote from: Krazz on November 25, 2023, 05:39:20 PM

Quote from: jhkim on November 23, 2023, 01:33:28 AM
The point where Western Europe really starts to leap ahead is after 1500CE, which is just after they begin to colonize the Americas. That's clearly not a coincidence.

Not a coincidence, but maybe not all in the way you're thinking. It only happened once Europe had advanced nautically to have ocean-going vessels. Europe had an amazingly innovative and outgoing culture at the time. After all, it wasn't access to raw resources that led to Newon and Leibnitz inventing calculus. Around 1500, Copernicus was creating his heliocentric model. And that's the problem: separating cause and effect. The finding of the Americas undoubtedly boosted Europe, but how much was it also a symptom of Europe already leaping ahead?

Quote from: jhkim on November 23, 2023, 01:33:28 AM
1) It is the closest to the Americas. They are on the edge of the Atlantic, and the Atlantic is less than a third the width of the Pacific.

Europe is further from the Americas than either Asia or Africa is. The Bering straight is tiny. You might complain that it's really far north, but let's not forget that Europeans had already found a way to the Americas via Iceland and Greenland. And the gap from Africa to the Americas is smaller and along more hospitable climes, with Muslim cultures along the west coast of Africa which were part of the east-west knowledge exchange. If distance is so important, why didn't they get there first? Ironically, part of the reason was Muslims sitting on the east-west trade routes, driving the Europeans to head west to reach the Indies.

Quote from: jhkim on November 23, 2023, 01:33:28 AM
2) Simply from their coastline, Western Europe would naturally be more of a seagoing civilization. They progressed from navigating the Mediterranean to managing along the Atlantic coast, and eventually through the Baltic and then across the Atlantic. One can access all through Europe by going around by ocean -- while the Asian coastline is much less lumpy.

There's a lot of Asia that's inland, and nobody is wondering why the Mongols didn't reach the Americas first. But much of Asia is coastal. Not just places like Japan, but even today, the vast majority of China's population is near the coast, even if its landmass isn't. So I don't buy that bit of geography holding them back. And once more, if we look at Europe, Africa and Asia:

1) they all have sizeable Mediterranean coasts
2) Africa and Asia each border 2 oceans (not counting the less-hospitable Southern and Arctic)
3) the Red Sea and Indian Ocean were (and still are) incredibly important and well-used sea-ways for both Asia and Africa

So although geography makes a difference, I still think that culture plays a big part.

Necessity is the motherhood of all invention.  It is why the Europeans innovated.  Lets look at religion, culture and slavery as reasons why Europeans dominated.  In 700 AD when Muslims were founded there were 5 great Christian cities and by 1453 the only remaining great Christian city was Rome, all conquered and sacked by Islam.  From the late 700's to 1700's there was continuous Islamic colonization of Europe.  1492 wasn't just when Columbus sailed the ocean blue it was the liberation of Spain by the Reconquista.  Meanwhile, Eastern Europe was being digested by the Ottoman Empire.  The Mediterranean Sea was called an Islamic lake for the Dark Ages and Renaissance due to Islamic slavers running roughshod and enslaving/sinking anyone not Muslim.  There are documented slave raids all the way up to Iceland.  Total combined slaves taken by the Muslims including Eastern Europe is over 2M.  Europeans were being systemically decimated by Islam.  On the West, it was an unknown Frankish chief who stopped the Moors close to Paris from conquering France.  In the East, its was 20,000 Polish Hussars who helped to stop the 1683 siege of Vienna by the Ottomans.  Europe had over a thousand years of colonization and slavery imposed on itself.

Having these pressures placed on Europeans gave them an incentive to expand to the Ocean to find new lands to settle and expand their power, because the East and South were filled with terrors and slavery for them and nations they could not beat in open battles.  Creating better sea going ships to get access to India for its spices and silks to bypass the Muslims and their slavery and wars was why we got Westward expansion by European powers.

Quote from: Krazz on November 25, 2023, 05:39:20 PM
So although geography makes a difference, I still think that culture plays a big part.

Quote from: GeekyBugle on November 25, 2023, 09:17:38 PM
As for culture... Culture is shaped by the environment too, the foods you eat, the rituals you have are all a product of your environment.

The Tibethans never became sailors, wonder why
The Inuit never had a Sun God, because? Their environment
All cultures as far as I know had some type of alcoholic beverage, but not all cultures used allucigenic fungus as part of their rituals, once again environment shapping the culture.
The Aztecs knew the wheel, as proven by some toys, yet they never used it to move cargo, because of their environment.

Exactly. Culture is influenced very much by environment. Christianity did not look the same in Eastern Europe vs Western Europe vs Ethiopia and the rest of Africa. Those cultures developed very differently, even though they were all Christian.

The whole thesis of GG&S is that while Sumer had an advanced culture that developed writing and mathematics far beyond others compared to it, there were environmental factors that influenced Sumer's development of its literate culture.

---

Quote from: Krazz on November 25, 2023, 05:39:20 PM

Quote from: jhkim on November 23, 2023, 01:33:28 AM
The point where Western Europe really starts to leap ahead is after 1500CE, which is just after they begin to colonize the Americas. That's clearly not a coincidence.

Not a coincidence, but maybe not all in the way you're thinking. It only happened once Europe had advanced nautically to have ocean-going vessels. Europe had an amazingly innovative and outgoing culture at the time. After all, it wasn't access to raw resources that led to Newon and Leibnitz inventing calculus. Around 1500, Copernicus was creating his heliocentric model. And that's the problem: separating cause and effect. The finding of the Americas undoubtedly boosted Europe, but how much was it also a symptom of Europe already leaping ahead?

Europe in 1492 had the Spanish Inquisition, the expulsion of Jews from Spain, and a corrupt Catholic Church selling indulgences. Columbus was seeking a new route to Asia because Asia had superior manufacturing - of porcelain, silk, spices, and other goods. China and India were not particularly impressed with any of European offerings at that point.

Copernicus published his model in 1543, but it languished in obscurity for decades and was objectively worse at predicting the planetary positions than the Ptolemaic models of the time. By comparison, in India in 1501, Nilakantha Somayaji published his astronomical treatise Tantrasamgraha, where the planets orbit the Sun, including geometric series for calculating the arctan, with better predictive power than the Copernican model and published four decades earlier. It also languished in relative obscurity, of course. Similarly, the Gutenberg press was a great advance for Europe in 1440, but movable metal type had been in use in China and Korea for nearly two centuries at that point.

You say that resources have nothing to do with it, but I think GG&S makes a great show about how resources are important for invention.  Isaac Newton was absolutely a genius, but he depended not just on prior work - but on having an expensive education and the free time that comes with wealth.

-----

Quote from: Krazz on November 25, 2023, 05:39:20 PM

Quote from: jhkim on November 23, 2023, 01:33:28 AM
1) It is the closest to the Americas. They are on the edge of the Atlantic, and the Atlantic is less than a third the width of the Pacific.

Europe is further from the Americas than either Asia or Africa is. The Bering straight is tiny. You might complain that it's really far north, but let's not forget that Europeans had already found a way to the Americas via Iceland and Greenland. And the gap from Africa to the Americas is smaller and along more hospitable climes, with Muslim cultures along the west coast of Africa which were part of the east-west knowledge exchange.

Like the Chinese discovery of Australia, the Norse discovery of America Greenland had zero effect on the progress of history, and for centuries it was doubted whether they had even accomplished it at all. Discovering Alaska would have been similar to discovering Australia. It does not produce a return-on-investment from expeditions.

Western Africa is south of the East-West axis of civilizations according to Diamond's thesis. The distinction is that one cannot grow the same crops there as in the Middle East or Mediterranean. The climate is markedly different. Early farmers in sub-Saharan Africa grew sorghum and millet, which have relatively low yield. They had contact with these civilizations, but the thesis is that without the crops, they did not have the food surplus to support scholars and research to the same degree.

Quote from: Krazz on November 25, 2023, 05:39:20 PM

Quote from: jhkim on November 23, 2023, 01:33:28 AM
2) Simply from their coastline, Western Europe would naturally be more of a seagoing civilization. They progressed from navigating the Mediterranean to managing along the Atlantic coast, and eventually through the Baltic and then across the Atlantic. One can access all through Europe by going around by ocean -- while the Asian coastline is much less lumpy.

And once more, if we look at Europe, Africa and Asia:

1) they all have sizeable Mediterranean coasts
2) Africa and Asia each border 2 oceans (not counting the less-hospitable Southern and Arctic)
3) the Red Sea and Indian Ocean were (and still are) incredibly important and well-used sea-ways for both Asia and Africa

I'll suggest Looking at this another way. If we compare Western Europe with China in 1492... China had advanced porcelain, textiles, metallurgy, literature, medicine, and many other fields compared to Western Europe. Indeed, Western Europe was desperate to get many of the goods that China produced. However, China had vastly worse ship design than Western Europe.

I claim that this is because of environment. If it became important, then China would have invested in ship design and gotten much better.

The geography and circumstances of China were such that they had little incentive to make better ship design. Europe had much more of a history of naval competition, invasions, and warfare. One can look at the Punic Wars of Rome to see this in action, when Rome suddenly jumped from having no navy to taking on a leading naval power (Carthage). Or look at Japan leading up to WWII, which within one generation created a fleet and air force to rival that of the United States.

Again, I don't disagree that China turned inwards and Western Europe turned outwards - but that had a lot to do with circumstance.

The Polynesian ships were better than anything any American culture had prior to the arrival of the Europeans, not because their culture was more advanced, or because no American culture had an ocean nearby, buth of those are untrue, but because of necesity.

Don't remember who invented the escaloned gardens style of agriculture, but it wasn't invented by the Aztecs who instead invented the chinampa, because their environments were different.

Some people seem to think that culture springs fully formed from the ether, or that saying the environment SHAPES the culture is somehow robbing some cultures from their merits, not true, other cultures in a similar environment didn't do the exact same thing because of other reasons, sometimes because they were being constantly invaded by people because it's easy to walk into the middle east.

Cultures grow near fresh watter sources, yet not all discovered that the river flooding the banks was good for their crops.

Also let's consider disease, it's not easy to live in a place where Malaria and other parasites or animals or the climate put you barely above subsisting and then develop an advanced culture, it's why certain jungles never allowed those living there to do so. Imagine there's periodic droughts, you can't make technological advancements because you're constantly on the verge of dying.

Why is it the Innuit used to keep their people barely above starvation levels even during the good years? They learned they needed to get used to barely survive to withstand the bad years.

If you live in a place where being a hunter-gatherer is enough to live then you'll remain a nomad until something changes, the tribes that moved further south from the Rio Grande found different environment that allowed them to produce surplus, ergo artistic, scientific development was possible.

The rulling class among the Maya and Aztecs (and likely those who came before them) went to school, among other things to learn to make war but also learned arts, poetry, music, etc.

Not because they were genetically superior to their northern cousins, but because they had surplus, a more moderate weather and none of the parasites the African people had to suffer. Thus "progress"  is possible.

Now, some cultures ARE superior to others, for instance not enslaving and making war to your neighbors to have human sacrifices seems to allow for a better society and more progress to be made.

One of the biggest things that GG&S fails at dealing with is the level of cooperation some of the a fore mentioned cultural and technical developments needed.  Every culture has infighting but the more intense or the more fractal the infighting is the lower the rate of development is.  European powers that grew to world dominating levels did so because of a strong internal cohesion relative to other cultures. 

Edit:  I believe that the other cultures that didn't accelerate are due to either infighting and therefore no cooperation that's needed or oppressive regimes that suppress free thought and innovation and therefore no cooperation.

Quote from: BadApple on November 27, 2023, 05:30:24 AM
One of the biggest things that GG&S fails at dealing with is the level of cooperation some of the a fore mentioned cultural and technical developments needed.  Every culture has infighting but the more intense or the more fractal the infighting is the lower the rate of development is.  European powers that grew to world dominating levels did so because of a strong internal cohesion relative to other cultures. 

Edit:  I believe that the other cultures that didn't accelerate are due to either infighting and therefore no cooperation that's needed or oppressive regimes that suppress free thought and innovation and therefore no cooperation.

That seems like a fine line to split. Some of the most devastating wars in history have been fought among Europeans up through the 20th century - i.e. going back there is WWI, the Napoleonic Wars, the Thirty Years War, the Hundred Years War, etc.

Yes, Europe developed the Enlightenment in the late 1600s, but that was *after* they started to leap ahead technologically. Indeed, GeekyBugle suggested the opposite, that a reason for Europe's innovation was precisely their infighting.

Quote from: GeekyBugle on November 23, 2023, 01:20:50 PM
Lots of small neighboring nations making war to each other gave an impulse to innovation

If we look to the 1500s and earlier, Western Europeans were united in their Catholic faith, though they still fought each other. However, under the Catholic Church, they didn't have significantly more free thought than other civilizations. If you spoke out against the church, you were likely to be branded a heretic and burned at the stake. Giordano Bruno was burned at the stake in 1600 for suggesting that the stars were other suns with their own planets. If anything, India and China had more freedom of religion and philosophy than Europe in this period. There were many religious minorities in India and China, and a flowering of philosophical writing.

After the Reformation, there were even more devastating wars among Europeans over religion. A century later, the Enlightenment and free speech did help innovation, but by the timing, it was a result of advancement rather than a cause. The Enlightenment was after the Scientific Revolution and other advances.

Quote from: jhkim on November 27, 2023, 12:47:35 PM

Quote from: BadApple on November 27, 2023, 05:30:24 AM
One of the biggest things that GG&S fails at dealing with is the level of cooperation some of the a fore mentioned cultural and technical developments needed.  Every culture has infighting but the more intense or the more fractal the infighting is the lower the rate of development is.  European powers that grew to world dominating levels did so because of a strong internal cohesion relative to other cultures. 

Edit:  I believe that the other cultures that didn't accelerate are due to either infighting and therefore no cooperation that's needed or oppressive regimes that suppress free thought and innovation and therefore no cooperation.

That seems like a fine line to split. Some of the most devastating wars in history have been fought among Europeans up through the 20th century - i.e. going back there is WWI, the Napoleonic Wars, the Thirty Years War, the Hundred Years War, etc.

Yes, Europe developed the Enlightenment in the late 1600s, but that was *after* they started to leap ahead technologically. Indeed, GeekyBugle suggested the opposite, that a reason for Europe's innovation was precisely their infighting.

Quote from: GeekyBugle on November 23, 2023, 01:20:50 PM
Lots of small neighboring nations making war to each other gave an impulse to innovation

If we look to the 1500s and earlier, Western Europeans were united in their Catholic faith, though they still fought each other. However, under the Catholic Church, they didn't have significantly more free thought than other civilizations. If you spoke out against the church, you were likely to be branded a heretic and burned at the stake. Giordano Bruno was burned at the stake in 1600 for suggesting that the stars were other suns with their own planets. If anything, India and China had more freedom of religion and philosophy than Europe in this period. There were many religious minorities in India and China, and a flowering of philosophical writing.

After the Reformation, there were even more devastating wars among Europeans over religion. A century later, the Enlightenment and free speech did help innovation, but by the timing, it was a result of advancement rather than a cause. The Enlightenment was after the Scientific Revolution and other advances.

Because the Mongols and the Muslims don't count as bloody wars fought on Europe against "European" peoples.

Also because European culture has ever been a thing.

BadApple's point about infigthing is a valid one, just look at which countries became super-powers, they were figthing other countries but had internal cohesion.

As for those super-powers and Europe in general owing their advancement to their conquering of the Americas... BS, they were already far superior in many technological aspects to the middle east and China, and they had the push to compete with each other, unlike China who had no one Chalenging them after the Mongols. What need had China to sail for silk or spices they could trade with their neighbors?

Quote from: GeekyBugle on November 27, 2023, 03:32:11 PM

Quote from: jhkim on November 27, 2023, 12:47:35 PM

Quote from: BadApple on November 27, 2023, 05:30:24 AM
One of the biggest things that GG&S fails at dealing with is the level of cooperation some of the a fore mentioned cultural and technical developments needed.  Every culture has infighting but the more intense or the more fractal the infighting is the lower the rate of development is.  European powers that grew to world dominating levels did so because of a strong internal cohesion relative to other cultures. 

Edit:  I believe that the other cultures that didn't accelerate are due to either infighting and therefore no cooperation that's needed or oppressive regimes that suppress free thought and innovation and therefore no cooperation.

That seems like a fine line to split. Some of the most devastating wars in history have been fought among Europeans up through the 20th century - i.e. going back there is WWI, the Napoleonic Wars, the Thirty Years War, the Hundred Years War, etc.

Yes, Europe developed the Enlightenment in the late 1600s, but that was *after* they started to leap ahead technologically. Indeed, GeekyBugle suggested the opposite, that a reason for Europe's innovation was precisely their infighting.

Quote from: GeekyBugle on November 23, 2023, 01:20:50 PM
Lots of small neighboring nations making war to each other gave an impulse to innovation

If we look to the 1500s and earlier, Western Europeans were united in their Catholic faith, though they still fought each other. However, under the Catholic Church, they didn't have significantly more free thought than other civilizations. If you spoke out against the church, you were likely to be branded a heretic and burned at the stake. Giordano Bruno was burned at the stake in 1600 for suggesting that the stars were other suns with their own planets. If anything, India and China had more freedom of religion and philosophy than Europe in this period. There were many religious minorities in India and China, and a flowering of philosophical writing.

After the Reformation, there were even more devastating wars among Europeans over religion. A century later, the Enlightenment and free speech did help innovation, but by the timing, it was a result of advancement rather than a cause. The Enlightenment was after the Scientific Revolution and other advances.

Because the Mongols and the Muslims don't count as bloody wars fought on Europe against "European" peoples.

Also because European culture has ever been a thing.

BadApple's point about infigthing is a valid one, just look at which countries became super-powers, they were figthing other countries but had internal cohesion.

As for those super-powers and Europe in general owing their advancement to their conquering of the Americas... BS, they were already far superior in many technological aspects to the middle east and China, and they had the push to compete with each other, unlike China who had no one Chalenging them after the Mongols. What need had China to sail for silk or spices they could trade with their neighbors?

Europe wasn't superior to the Ottomans till the 1700's.  The Ottomans ran roughshod over Europe for centuries.

Quote from: GeekyBugle on November 27, 2023, 03:32:11 PM
As for those super-powers and Europe in general owing their advancement to their conquering of the Americas... BS, they were already far superior in many technological aspects to the middle east and China, and they had the push to compete with each other, unlike China who had no one Chalenging them after the Mongols. What need had China to sail for silk or spices they could trade with their neighbors?

I agree about pushing to compete with each other. That's why I quoted you. You and I seem to agree that the infighting and competition between different European countries (England vs France vs Spain etc.) was likely a benefit to innovation. In his appendix on development after 1500, Diamond says similar. China seems to have developed strongly to a point, had strong internal cohesion, and then stagnated. But BadApple claimed the opposite - that strong internal cohesion and lack of infighting was a benefit.

The question of infighting and internal cohesion doesn't seem clear to me either way, or at least, it's not a simple factor.

---

As for European superiority prior to 1492, can you give some examples of what you're thinking of? I would agree that Europe had superior ship-building in 1492, but in nearly all other fields, they were roughly comparable at best. As honeydipperdavid noted recently, in 1492, the Europeans did not have a significant military edge over the Ottomans. They had some victories but also some losses. Most of Europe still used Roman numerals, and had worse mathematics than the Middle East or India.

It wasn't until the 1700's that the Ottoman Turks Navy declined.  AND even then the Barbary pirates took up their stead and through piracy they were the terror of the European countries even then.  The Barbary pirates had the US being their bitches and ordered them to make ships of the line for the Barbary pirates to get their sailors back, and weren't ended until 1830.

The Turks had no need to conquer Western Europe while they could tax and enslave Europeans, essentially farming Europeans.  Think of it as you are in a PVP game and you come across a nube miner, do you kill him and take everything from him OR do you leave him with his pick, backpack and enough food to get him back to town?  You farm the nubes, its what the Ottoman's did to the West., they farmed them like sheep.

Quote from: jhkim on November 27, 2023, 04:14:15 PM

Quote from: GeekyBugle on November 27, 2023, 03:32:11 PM
As for those super-powers and Europe in general owing their advancement to their conquering of the Americas... BS, they were already far superior in many technological aspects to the middle east and China, and they had the push to compete with each other, unlike China who had no one Chalenging them after the Mongols. What need had China to sail for silk or spices they could trade with their neighbors?

I agree about pushing to compete with each other. That's why I quoted you. You and I seem to agree that the infighting and competition between different European countries (England vs France vs Spain etc.) was likely a benefit to innovation. In his appendix on development after 1500, Diamond says similar. China seems to have developed strongly to a point, had strong internal cohesion, and then stagnated. But BadApple claimed the opposite - that strong internal cohesion and lack of infighting was a benefit.

The question of infighting and internal cohesion doesn't seem clear to me either way, or at least, it's not a simple factor.

---

As for European superiority prior to 1492, can you give some examples of what you're thinking of? I would agree that Europe had superior ship-building in 1492, but in nearly all other fields, they were roughly comparable at best. As honeydipperdavid noted recently, in 1492, the Europeans did not have a significant military edge over the Ottomans. They had some victories but also some losses. Most of Europe still used Roman numerals, and had worse mathematics than the Middle East or India.

China has never had good internal cohesion, not compared to England or Spain of the late middle ages.

Innovation usually comes from specialists that are able to be specialists because their general labor isn't needed as badly.  A larger group of similar specialists in the same or similar fields means accelerated innovation.  This can only happen when there's a large enough community helping each other to allow for a number of specialist to rely on them.

Also, infighting doesn't necessarily need to come in the form of warfare either.  People simply being passive aggressive and refusing to communicate will be just as detrimental.  This is why oppressive societies don't innovate either.   

Quote from: BadApple on November 27, 2023, 05:55:52 PM

Quote from: jhkim on November 27, 2023, 04:14:15 PM

Quote from: GeekyBugle on November 27, 2023, 03:32:11 PM
As for those super-powers and Europe in general owing their advancement to their conquering of the Americas... BS, they were already far superior in many technological aspects to the middle east and China, and they had the push to compete with each other, unlike China who had no one Chalenging them after the Mongols. What need had China to sail for silk or spices they could trade with their neighbors?

I agree about pushing to compete with each other. That's why I quoted you. You and I seem to agree that the infighting and competition between different European countries (England vs France vs Spain etc.) was likely a benefit to innovation. In his appendix on development after 1500, Diamond says similar. China seems to have developed strongly to a point, had strong internal cohesion, and then stagnated. But BadApple claimed the opposite - that strong internal cohesion and lack of infighting was a benefit.

The question of infighting and internal cohesion doesn't seem clear to me either way, or at least, it's not a simple factor.

---

As for European superiority prior to 1492, can you give some examples of what you're thinking of? I would agree that Europe had superior ship-building in 1492, but in nearly all other fields, they were roughly comparable at best. As honeydipperdavid noted recently, in 1492, the Europeans did not have a significant military edge over the Ottomans. They had some victories but also some losses. Most of Europe still used Roman numerals, and had worse mathematics than the Middle East or India.

China has never had good internal cohesion, not compared to England or Spain of the late middle ages.

Innovation usually comes from specialists that are able to be specialists because their general labor isn't needed as badly.  A larger group of similar specialists in the same or similar fields means accelerated innovation.  This can only happen when there's a large enough community helping each other to allow for a number of specialist to rely on them.

Also, infighting doesn't necessarily need to come in the form of warfare either.  People simply being passive aggressive and refusing to communicate will be just as detrimental.  This is why oppressive societies don't innovate either.   

China has always been divided along ethnic lines, the Han vs everybody else and everybody else against each other too.

For China the corruption or hiding bad news for fear to lose face (and your head and the heads of your family) it's nothing new, of course for the "Western bad" bunch the worst system ever was European Feudalism (prior to colonialism) but as bad as that was the Chinese version was way worst, remember the Kings had divine right but weren't divine, the Chinese Emperor was considered divine.

Quote from: jhkim on November 27, 2023, 04:14:15 PM

Quote from: GeekyBugle on November 27, 2023, 03:32:11 PM
As for those super-powers and Europe in general owing their advancement to their conquering of the Americas... BS, they were already far superior in many technological aspects to the middle east and China, and they had the push to compete with each other, unlike China who had no one Chalenging them after the Mongols. What need had China to sail for silk or spices they could trade with their neighbors?

I agree about pushing to compete with each other. That's why I quoted you. You and I seem to agree that the infighting and competition between different European countries (England vs France vs Spain etc.) was likely a benefit to innovation. In his appendix on development after 1500, Diamond says similar. China seems to have developed strongly to a point, had strong internal cohesion, and then stagnated. But BadApple claimed the opposite - that strong internal cohesion and lack of infighting was a benefit.

The question of infighting and internal cohesion doesn't seem clear to me either way, or at least, it's not a simple factor.

---

As for European superiority prior to 1492, can you give some examples of what you're thinking of? I would agree that Europe had superior ship-building in 1492, but in nearly all other fields, they were roughly comparable at best. As honeydipperdavid noted recently, in 1492, the Europeans did not have a significant military edge over the Ottomans. They had some victories but also some losses. Most of Europe still used Roman numerals, and had worse mathematics than the Middle East or India.

Why you insist on treating Europe as a single entity?

Internal cohesion in each separate country, lack of infighthing inside the country.

As for progress prior to 1492...

Of course, follow the links to the citations https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_science_in_the_Middle_Ages (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_science_in_the_Middle_Ages)

I know it's not fashionable to admit that the conquest of the Americas brought exactly ZERO knowledge or that we lowly huwhites are capable of discovery without the help of our betters, but fuck it, why not give the hypothesis that "Europeans" weren't and aren't inferior a chance?

Quote from: BadApple on November 27, 2023, 05:55:52 PM

Quote from: jhkim on November 27, 2023, 04:14:15 PM
You and I seem to agree that the infighting and competition between different European countries (England vs France vs Spain etc.) was likely a benefit to innovation. In his appendix on development after 1500, Diamond says similar. China seems to have developed strongly to a point, had strong internal cohesion, and then stagnated. But BadApple claimed the opposite - that strong internal cohesion and lack of infighting was a benefit.

The question of infighting and internal cohesion doesn't seem clear to me either way, or at least, it's not a simple factor.

China has never had good internal cohesion, not compared to England or Spain of the late middle ages.

The question had been about comparing large regions like Western Europe vs the Mediterranean vs the Middle East vs India. None of these were countries in 1492. They were cultural regions.

The English cultural region is a subsection of the island of Britain, which in 1492 was divided into competing cultures of English (about 2 million), Welsh (0.5M) and Scottish (0.5M). Western Europe more broadly was divided into many other nations. The Iberian peninsula was divided into Portugal, Castille, and Aragon. The Italian peninsula was divided into many city-states. The largest nation was the Holy Roman Empire, which was only marginally unified politically.

East Asia, by contrast, had a much larger area and population that were unified under a the Ming government with between 60 and 100 million people. Add to that 8 million Joseon who were pretty unified, and 10 million Japanese (about as unified as Britain).

I agree that the 60 million Chinese were more loosely joined than the 2 million English were with each other, but that's a lot more people unified. Yes, the Ming would fall apart by 1644, but then, England had a civil war in 1642 that broke the country apart too.

Quote from: GeekyBugle on November 27, 2023, 08:18:59 PM

Quote from: jhkim on November 27, 2023, 04:14:15 PM
As for European superiority prior to 1492, can you give some examples of what you're thinking of? I would agree that Europe had superior ship-building in 1492, but in nearly all other fields, they were roughly comparable at best. As honeydipperdavid noted recently, in 1492, the Europeans did not have a significant military edge over the Ottomans. They had some victories but also some losses. Most of Europe still used Roman numerals, and had worse mathematics than the Middle East or India.

As for progress prior to 1492...

Of course, follow the links to the citations https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_science_in_the_Middle_Ages (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_science_in_the_Middle_Ages)

Thanks. I'm pretty familiar with the history of science, though. I found this book pretty interesting for the original sources in it on medieval European science.

https://www.goodreads.com/en/book/show/731391

The question is still in what fields you think Europe was much more advanced in. I don't disagree that medieval Europe had scientific developments - but China, the Middle East, and India had tons of discoveries as well. Gunpowder and the compass were invented in China, for example. As some sampling,

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_in_the_medieval_Islamic_world

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_science_and_technology_in_the_Indian_subcontinent

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_science_and_technology_in_China

For example, this is a salt drill in medieval China, using pipes to separate brine from underground.

(https://www.asianstudies.org/wp-content/uploads/Marone2.jpg)

cf. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salt_well

Quote from: jhkim on November 28, 2023, 03:24:05 AM

Quote from: BadApple on November 27, 2023, 05:55:52 PM

Quote from: jhkim on November 27, 2023, 04:14:15 PM
You and I seem to agree that the infighting and competition between different European countries (England vs France vs Spain etc.) was likely a benefit to innovation. In his appendix on development after 1500, Diamond says similar. China seems to have developed strongly to a point, had strong internal cohesion, and then stagnated. But BadApple claimed the opposite - that strong internal cohesion and lack of infighting was a benefit.

The question of infighting and internal cohesion doesn't seem clear to me either way, or at least, it's not a simple factor.

China has never had good internal cohesion, not compared to England or Spain of the late middle ages.

The question had been about comparing large regions like Western Europe vs the Mediterranean vs the Middle East vs India. None of these were countries in 1492. They were cultural regions.

The English cultural region is a subsection of the island of Britain, which in 1492 was divided into competing cultures of English (about 2 million), Welsh (0.5M) and Scottish (0.5M). Western Europe more broadly was divided into many other nations. The Iberian peninsula was divided into Portugal, Castille, and Aragon. The Italian peninsula was divided into many city-states. The largest nation was the Holy Roman Empire, which was only marginally unified politically.

East Asia, by contrast, had a much larger area and population that were unified under a the Ming government with between 60 and 100 million people. Add to that 8 million Joseon who were pretty unified, and 10 million Japanese (about as unified as Britain).

I agree that the 60 million Chinese were more loosely joined than the 2 million English were with each other, but that's a lot more people unified. Yes, the Ming would fall apart by 1644, but then, England had a civil war in 1642 that broke the country apart too.

Quote from: GeekyBugle on November 27, 2023, 08:18:59 PM

Quote from: jhkim on November 27, 2023, 04:14:15 PM
As for European superiority prior to 1492, can you give some examples of what you're thinking of? I would agree that Europe had superior ship-building in 1492, but in nearly all other fields, they were roughly comparable at best. As honeydipperdavid noted recently, in 1492, the Europeans did not have a significant military edge over the Ottomans. They had some victories but also some losses. Most of Europe still used Roman numerals, and had worse mathematics than the Middle East or India.

As for progress prior to 1492...

Of course, follow the links to the citations https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_science_in_the_Middle_Ages (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_science_in_the_Middle_Ages)

Thanks. I'm pretty familiar with the history of science, though. I found this book pretty interesting for the original sources in it on medieval European science.

https://www.goodreads.com/en/book/show/731391

The question is still in what fields you think Europe was much more advanced in. I don't disagree that medieval Europe had scientific developments - but China, the Middle East, and India had tons of discoveries as well. Gunpowder and the compass were invented in China, for example. As some sampling,

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_in_the_medieval_Islamic_world

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_science_and_technology_in_the_Indian_subcontinent

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_science_and_technology_in_China

For example, this is a salt drill in medieval China, using pipes to separate brine from underground.

(https://www.asianstudies.org/wp-content/uploads/Marone2.jpg)

cf. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salt_well

Even the more regional social structures in India and and China didn't have the larger social structure cohesion that say England had. 

The major powers of Europe really took off in the age of enlightenment though they were improving along the same rate as they were improving their society.  Though it lagged by a few years, the rate of innovation increased with the level of individual rights and sense of belonging to a nation. 

Edit:  To be clear, this stands in direct opposition to Diamond in that he's trying to say that we just got lucky due to geography and I am saying that social structure and culture shaped innovation and development.  I believe that the N. American natives could have easily conquered the world if they could have cooperated with each other for a few hundred years rather than trying to commit genocide every 10 minutes.

Quote from: BadApple on November 28, 2023, 04:04:43 AM
Even the more regional social structures in India and and China didn't have the larger social structure cohesion that say England had. 

The major powers of Europe really took off in the age of enlightenment though they were improving along the same rate as they were improving their society.  Though it lagged by a few years, the rate of innovation increased with the level of individual rights and sense of belonging to a nation. 

Edit:  To be clear, this stands in direct opposition to Diamond in that he's trying to say that we just got lucky due to geography and I am saying that social structure and culture shaped innovation and development.  I believe that the N. American natives could have easily conquered the world if they could have cooperated with each other for a few hundred years rather than trying to commit genocide every 10 minutes.

As somebody who's married to a historian specialising in England in the 15th-16th centuries, this really doesn't make sense. What "social structure cohesion" are you talking about? Wars of the Roses, anyone? Henry's break with Rome and the multiple decades of disruption that ensued?

Sure, East Anglia had a prosperous merchant class during a lot of this time (we were literally doing primary research in Bury St. Edmunds yesterday), but you might need to be a little more precise about "social cohesion" given that there was also plenty of prosperity & middle class in Asian cultures at the time.

Age of Enlightenment is usually later 17th through 18th centuries, so you might be off by a hundred or a hundred and fifty years? Or confusing cause with effect?

In the seventeenth century, in the onset to the Age of Enlightenment, you had the Thirty Years' War, where a large fraction of Germany is killed; it's not clear to me how you compare that to "N. American natives ... trying to commit genocide every 10 minutes". There's precious little reliable documentation about what the North American natives were up to before 1492 at the level you seem to be asking for - we know they had well-developed widespread trade networks, but how much else?

Quote from: Naburimannu on November 28, 2023, 07:31:15 AM

Quote from: BadApple on November 28, 2023, 04:04:43 AM
Even the more regional social structures in India and and China didn't have the larger social structure cohesion that say England had. 

The major powers of Europe really took off in the age of enlightenment though they were improving along the same rate as they were improving their society.  Though it lagged by a few years, the rate of innovation increased with the level of individual rights and sense of belonging to a nation. 

Edit:  To be clear, this stands in direct opposition to Diamond in that he's trying to say that we just got lucky due to geography and I am saying that social structure and culture shaped innovation and development.  I believe that the N. American natives could have easily conquered the world if they could have cooperated with each other for a few hundred years rather than trying to commit genocide every 10 minutes.

As somebody who's married to a historian specialising in England in the 15th-16th centuries, this really doesn't make sense. What "social structure cohesion" are you talking about? Wars of the Roses, anyone? Henry's break with Rome and the multiple decades of disruption that ensued?

Sure, East Anglia had a prosperous merchant class during a lot of this time (we were literally doing primary research in Bury St. Edmunds yesterday), but you might need to be a little more precise about "social cohesion" given that there was also plenty of prosperity & middle class in Asian cultures at the time.

Age of Enlightenment is usually later 17th through 18th centuries, so you might be off by a hundred or a hundred and fifty years? Or confusing cause with effect?

In the seventeenth century, in the onset to the Age of Enlightenment, you had the Thirty Years' War, where a large fraction of Germany is killed; it's not clear to me how you compare that to "N. American natives ... trying to commit genocide every 10 minutes". There's precious little reliable documentation about what the North American natives were up to before 1492 at the level you seem to be asking for - we know they had well-developed widespread trade networks, but how much else?

Large amount of Indian tribes were quite warlike well before the Europeans arrived on their shores.  From large fortification complexes of three rings of logs to simply going to war to take slaves, it was present in Native Americans.  Go figure, human beings are going to war against each other no matter what leftard revisionist narratives try to portray them as innocent tree people.  If they had progressed technologically its likely they would have ended up more like Europe or Asia but they didn't so they were closer to tribal Europe and Asia.  Even looking at the Aztecs, they were slavering cannibal assholes, the only reason they lost were the enslaved tribes joined the handful of Spaniards to fight them off.

https://www.canada.ca/en/department-national-defence/services/military-history/history-heritage/popular-books/aboriginal-people-canadian-military/warfare-pre-columbian-north-america.html

Quote from: Naburimannu on November 28, 2023, 07:31:15 AM

Quote from: BadApple on November 28, 2023, 04:04:43 AM
Even the more regional social structures in India and and China didn't have the larger social structure cohesion that say England had. 

The major powers of Europe really took off in the age of enlightenment though they were improving along the same rate as they were improving their society.  Though it lagged by a few years, the rate of innovation increased with the level of individual rights and sense of belonging to a nation. 

Edit:  To be clear, this stands in direct opposition to Diamond in that he's trying to say that we just got lucky due to geography and I am saying that social structure and culture shaped innovation and development.  I believe that the N. American natives could have easily conquered the world if they could have cooperated with each other for a few hundred years rather than trying to commit genocide every 10 minutes.

As somebody who's married to a historian specialising in England in the 15th-16th centuries, this really doesn't make sense. What "social structure cohesion" are you talking about? Wars of the Roses, anyone? Henry's break with Rome and the multiple decades of disruption that ensued?

Sure, East Anglia had a prosperous merchant class during a lot of this time (we were literally doing primary research in Bury St. Edmunds yesterday), but you might need to be a little more precise about "social cohesion" given that there was also plenty of prosperity & middle class in Asian cultures at the time.

Age of Enlightenment is usually later 17th through 18th centuries, so you might be off by a hundred or a hundred and fifty years? Or confusing cause with effect?

In the seventeenth century, in the onset to the Age of Enlightenment, you had the Thirty Years' War, where a large fraction of Germany is killed; it's not clear to me how you compare that to "N. American natives ... trying to commit genocide every 10 minutes". There's precious little reliable documentation about what the North American natives were up to before 1492 at the level you seem to be asking for - we know they had well-developed widespread trade networks, but how much else?

Every single country has had internal divides but the ability to coalesce rather than keeping up a divisions afterwards is what I'm referring to.  It wasn't a flip of the switch event but a slow change in English culture that took centuries and hit some rough patches along the way.  The build up of a merchant class and the precursors to industrialization are significant evidence that there was a willingness to work together in larger groups than the typical "monkey brain" tribal groups.  Despite having watched their fathers kill each other, there was a willingness to set the issues aside and cooperate.

That's not so say that the differences were that great between various groups.  I would say that success was had at being just slightly better than others.  All it took was a little more social cohesion to beat out the Chinese.  Otherwise, I would be of mostly Asian decent and England may well have been a quaint little island country that was once the colony of the Ming Dynasty.  One of my favorite things about learning history is those cool moments when "if it weren't for this teacup" then things would have been very different.

As far as Native American wars and the constant inter-tribal and intra-tribal warfare, we have quite a bit.  Currently existing cultural elements, oral tradition, and actual archeological evidence demonstrate this.  The Iroquois nations council was a great innovation of diplomacy but it didn't stop the small scale conflicts that were frequently flaring up between the members.  Yes, the best we have is a fuzzy image pieced together from indirect data but it holds up.

I would love to give you references but I have shit for bandwidth right now.  I also recognize that there is no crystal clear answer to such a complicated question as to "why human?"

Suffice it to say, we are looking at the crossroads of archeology, history, anthropology, philosophy, sociology, and social psychology.  This stuff is complicated and it cannot be both accurately and concisely expressed simultaneously.     

Greetings!

Well, technology and politics are both simple concepts, and enormously complex, at the same time.

When the Western Europeans really got over to China--1500's or thereabouts--China *Laughed* at the best the Europeans could do. The Empire of China quite literally outclassed everything that the Europeans had, from gunpowder, rockets, clocks, farm technology, industrial technology, food cuisine, flavours, spices, clothing fashion, quality, science, literature, philosophy. paper money, and on and on.

As Professor Michael Wood said, "For the Chinese at this point in history, this fateful meeting--the Europeans could only offer gifts that the Chinese regarded as toys." Europe had NOTHING to offer China. China also had millions and millions of people, was self-sufficient in resources, and literally ruled over Asia politically, culturally, and economically, like a gigantic, colossal dragon. Only India remained more or less independent, and separate. Everything and everyone else, more or less paid homage to the Dragon Throne.

Europe, on the other hand, saw MUCH they desired from China. Everything from gunpowder, silk clothing, spices, rice, colours, porcelain, and on and on. The technological, food, clothing, knowledge, everything that China offered Europe was a HUGE level up, across the board in a staggering number of areas of life.

So, why didn't China fucking colonize Europe?

Well, this is where you get into knowledge, conceptually, and practically, what you do with that knowledge. China knew gunpowder, and had fireworks and simple rockets and some few cannon.

Europe made mass-produced muskets, mass produced cannon, both siege artiller, and smaller field cannon, and then mounted rows of cannons onboard warships.

Within two centuries, Europe would return to China, and China would helplessly kneel before the impossible might of the British Empire.

So, China didn't get their shit together with using the technology in the same dynamic ways that Europe did.

During the Opium Wars, Britain blew the shit out of the Chinese Army, totally annihilated the primitive Chinese navy, and easily landed and overthrew major Chinese fortresses and strongholds. The Chinese numbers of troops? Slaughtered helplessly before the might of Britain. Disciplined volleys of musket fire over and over again, small cannons unleashing rapid hellfire of shrapnel into Chinese ranks. Utter disaster for the Empire of China.

The Chinese Emperor was confronted by the savage, terrible truth, amongst his counselors. China was helpless before the might of Britain and must submit.

Britain gained everything they demanded. Port rights, fortresses, trade rights, Hong Kong, and more. And Britain also could continue pumping Opium into Chinese markets, and export it as well, and make profits of staggering scale.

And China would bow their fucking head and suck it down. They would learn to be obedient to their European masters. Soon, besides the British, the French, the Dutch, and the Portuguese, too, would join the party. Dark times for China, to be sure.

This also gets into cultural complacency, and arrogance. China had ruled and dominated for so long, everything and everywhere, they had *stopped* innovating. All their stuff was a century or more out-of-date when the Europeans returned with an axe to grind. Politically, socially, China was divided and weak, in many aspects. Resentments bubbled and were exploited by the Europeans. China, as large and wealthy as China was, failed to get their shit together culturally, politically, and technologically, and keep it all together.

That is how you lose in the arena of human competition and war, and get ruthlessly crushed.

Europe was divided, too! Whaa whaa. So what? The fact is, such divisions as I have alluded to, are differing by kind, texture, and degree. China, and India, just like the North American Indians, and the Celtic Irish, as well as most of Africa, were always far more divided along tribal and political aspects than much of Europe, whether it was the Romans, or the British or Portuguese.

Britain, France, Spain, Portugal, and to a lesser degree, the Dutch and Italians, and eventually the Russians as well--were able to unify faster and more cohesively in the time of need. They got on the team, and got with the program, to get shit done.

Along the way, they invented and exploited every knowledge to full effect, ruthlessly sharpened and honed for conquest and victory.

The Africans? The Indians? The Chinese? The American Natives? They were all defeated, and crushed.

That is the way things go. Within their own circles, all of the defeated nations and peoples were just as greedy, just as ruthless, as the Europeans. Just not to the same degree of unity, success, and application.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Quote from: SHARK on November 28, 2023, 10:14:28 AM
Greetings!

Well, technology and politics are both simple concepts, and enormously complex, at the same time.

When the Western Europeans really got over to China--1500's or thereabouts--China *Laughed* at the best the Europeans could do. The Empire of China quite literally outclassed everything that the Europeans had, from gunpowder, rockets, clocks, farm technology, industrial technology, food cuisine, flavours, spices, clothing fashion, quality, science, literature, philosophy. paper money, and on and on.

As Professor Michael Wood said, "For the Chinese at this point in history, this fateful meeting--the Europeans could only offer gifts that the Chinese regarded as toys." Europe had NOTHING to offer China. China also had millions and millions of people, was self-sufficient in resources, and literally ruled over Asia politically, culturally, and economically, like a gigantic, colossal dragon. Only India remained more or less independent, and separate. Everything and everyone else, more or less paid homage to the Dragon Throne.

Europe, on the other hand, saw MUCH they desired from China. Everything from gunpowder, silk clothing, spices, rice, colours, porcelain, and on and on. The technological, food, clothing, knowledge, everything that China offered Europe was a HUGE level up, across the board in a staggering number of areas of life.

So, why didn't China fucking colonize Europe?

Well, this is where you get into knowledge, conceptually, and practically, what you do with that knowledge. China knew gunpowder, and had fireworks and simple rockets and some few cannon.

Europe made mass-produced muskets, mass produced cannon, both siege artiller, and smaller field cannon, and then mounted rows of cannons onboard warships.

Within two centuries, Europe would return to China, and China would helplessly kneel before the impossible might of the British Empire.

So, China didn't get their shit together with using the technology in the same dynamic ways that Europe did.

During the Opium Wars, Britain blew the shit out of the Chinese Army, totally annihilated the primitive Chinese navy, and easily landed and overthrew major Chinese fortresses and strongholds. The Chinese numbers of troops? Slaughtered helplessly before the might of Britain. Disciplined volleys of musket fire over and over again, small cannons unleashing rapid hellfire of shrapnel into Chinese ranks. Utter disaster for the Empire of China.

The Chinese Emperor was confronted by the savage, terrible truth, amongst his counselors. China was helpless before the might of Britain and must submit.

Britain gained everything they demanded. Port rights, fortresses, trade rights, Hong Kong, and more. And Britain also could continue pumping Opium into Chinese markets, and export it as well, and make profits of staggering scale.

And China would bow their fucking head and suck it down. They would learn to be obedient to their European masters. Soon, besides the British, the French, the Dutch, and the Portuguese, too, would join the party. Dark times for China, to be sure.

This also gets into cultural complacency, and arrogance. China had ruled and dominated for so long, everything and everywhere, they had *stopped* innovating. All their stuff was a century or more out-of-date when the Europeans returned with an axe to grind. Politically, socially, China was divided and weak, in many aspects. Resentments bubbled and were exploited by the Europeans. China, as large and wealthy as China was, failed to get their shit together culturally, politically, and technologically, and keep it all together.

That is how you lose in the arena of human competition and war, and get ruthlessly crushed.

Europe was divided, too! Whaa whaa. So what? The fact is, such divisions as I have alluded to, are differing by kind, texture, and degree. China, and India, just like the North American Indians, and the Celtic Irish, as well as most of Africa, were always far more divided along tribal and political aspects than much of Europe, whether it was the Romans, or the British or Portuguese.

Britain, France, Spain, Portugal, and to a lesser degree, the Dutch and Italians, and eventually the Russians as well--were able to unify faster and more cohesively in the time of need. They got on the team, and got with the program, to get shit done.

Along the way, they invented and exploited every knowledge to full effect, ruthlessly sharpened and honed for conquest and victory.

The Africans? The Indians? The Chinese? The American Natives? They were all defeated, and crushed.

That is the way things go. Within their own circles, all of the defeated nations and peoples were just as greedy, just as ruthless, as the Europeans. Just not to the same degree of unity, success, and application.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

You also forgot about taughtness of vaginal surface area as well, they were top of their game.

Quote from: SHARK on November 28, 2023, 10:14:28 AM
Greetings!

Well, technology and politics are both simple concepts, and enormously complex, at the same time.

When the Western Europeans really got over to China--1500's or thereabouts--China *Laughed* at the best the Europeans could do. The Empire of China quite literally outclassed everything that the Europeans had, from gunpowder, rockets, clocks, farm technology, industrial technology, food cuisine, flavours, spices, clothing fashion, quality, science, literature, philosophy. paper money, and on and on.

As Professor Michael Wood said, "For the Chinese at this point in history, this fateful meeting--the Europeans could only offer gifts that the Chinese regarded as toys." Europe had NOTHING to offer China. China also had millions and millions of people, was self-sufficient in resources, and literally ruled over Asia politically, culturally, and economically, like a gigantic, colossal dragon. Only India remained more or less independent, and separate. Everything and everyone else, more or less paid homage to the Dragon Throne.

Europe, on the other hand, saw MUCH they desired from China. Everything from gunpowder, silk clothing, spices, rice, colours, porcelain, and on and on. The technological, food, clothing, knowledge, everything that China offered Europe was a HUGE level up, across the board in a staggering number of areas of life.

So, why didn't China fucking colonize Europe?

Well, this is where you get into knowledge, conceptually, and practically, what you do with that knowledge. China knew gunpowder, and had fireworks and simple rockets and some few cannon.

Europe made mass-produced muskets, mass produced cannon, both siege artiller, and smaller field cannon, and then mounted rows of cannons onboard warships.

Within two centuries, Europe would return to China, and China would helplessly kneel before the impossible might of the British Empire.

So, China didn't get their shit together with using the technology in the same dynamic ways that Europe did.

During the Opium Wars, Britain blew the shit out of the Chinese Army, totally annihilated the primitive Chinese navy, and easily landed and overthrew major Chinese fortresses and strongholds. The Chinese numbers of troops? Slaughtered helplessly before the might of Britain. Disciplined volleys of musket fire over and over again, small cannons unleashing rapid hellfire of shrapnel into Chinese ranks. Utter disaster for the Empire of China.

The Chinese Emperor was confronted by the savage, terrible truth, amongst his counselors. China was helpless before the might of Britain and must submit.

Britain gained everything they demanded. Port rights, fortresses, trade rights, Hong Kong, and more. And Britain also could continue pumping Opium into Chinese markets, and export it as well, and make profits of staggering scale.

And China would bow their fucking head and suck it down. They would learn to be obedient to their European masters. Soon, besides the British, the French, the Dutch, and the Portuguese, too, would join the party. Dark times for China, to be sure.

This also gets into cultural complacency, and arrogance. China had ruled and dominated for so long, everything and everywhere, they had *stopped* innovating. All their stuff was a century or more out-of-date when the Europeans returned with an axe to grind. Politically, socially, China was divided and weak, in many aspects. Resentments bubbled and were exploited by the Europeans. China, as large and wealthy as China was, failed to get their shit together culturally, politically, and technologically, and keep it all together.

That is how you lose in the arena of human competition and war, and get ruthlessly crushed.

Europe was divided, too! Whaa whaa. So what? The fact is, such divisions as I have alluded to, are differing by kind, texture, and degree. China, and India, just like the North American Indians, and the Celtic Irish, as well as most of Africa, were always far more divided along tribal and political aspects than much of Europe, whether it was the Romans, or the British or Portuguese.

Britain, France, Spain, Portugal, and to a lesser degree, the Dutch and Italians, and eventually the Russians as well--were able to unify faster and more cohesively in the time of need. They got on the team, and got with the program, to get shit done.

Along the way, they invented and exploited every knowledge to full effect, ruthlessly sharpened and honed for conquest and victory.

The Africans? The Indians? The Chinese? The American Natives? They were all defeated, and crushed.

That is the way things go. Within their own circles, all of the defeated nations and peoples were just as greedy, just as ruthless, as the Europeans. Just not to the same degree of unity, success, and application.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

One hypotheses for China's lack of progress compared to Europe goes to wine of all things.  Wine doesn't store well in clay jars, it does store better in glass.  Europeans were driven to create glass that could also be used for magnifying glasses and glasses which allowed a scholar to read longer in their life, whereas in China they didn't have glass so their careers were shorter.  I mean its fun to read the theories, as to if they are true, /meh.

Quote from: SHARK on November 28, 2023, 10:14:28 AM
Europe, on the other hand, saw MUCH they desired from China. Everything from gunpowder, silk clothing, spices, rice, colours, porcelain, and on and on. The technological, food, clothing, knowledge, everything that China offered Europe was a HUGE level up, across the board in a staggering number of areas of life.

So, why didn't China fucking colonize Europe?

Well, this is where you get into knowledge, conceptually, and practically, what you do with that knowledge. China knew gunpowder, and had fireworks and simple rockets and some few cannon.

Europe made mass-produced muskets, mass produced cannon, both siege artiller, and smaller field cannon, and then mounted rows of cannons onboard warships.

Within two centuries, Europe would return to China, and China would helplessly kneel before the impossible might of the British Empire.

So, China didn't get their shit together with using the technology in the same dynamic ways that Europe did.

I agree about the comparisons. GeekyBugle claims that in 1492, the Europeans were far superior in technology to China. I disagree, and your point here seems to agree with my view. This includes with gunpowder. In 1492, Chinese guns were roughly the equal of European guns. The Chinese had mass-produced cannons and matchlock hand cannons. For example,

QuoteThe Ming dynasty founder Zhu Yuanzhang, who declared his reign to be the era of Hongwu, or "Great Martiality," made prolific use of gunpowder weapons for his time. Early Ming military codes stipulated that ideally 10 percent of all soldiers should be gunners. By 1380, twelve years after the Ming dynasty's founding, the Ming army boasted around 130,000 gunners out of its 1.3 to 1.8 million strong army. At the outbreak of the Ming–Mong Mao War (1386–1388), the Ming general Mu Ying was ordered to produce a couple thousand hand cannons. Under Zhu Yuanzhang's successors, the percentage of gunners climbed higher and by the 1440s it reached 20 percent. In 1466 the ideal composition was 30 percent. In the aftermath of the Tumu Crisis of 1449, government authorities around the Tumu region collected from the field 5,000 sets of abandoned armour, 6,000 helmets, 30,000 firearms, 1,800 containers of gunpowder, and 440,000 crossbow bolts.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gunpowder_weapons_in_the_Ming_dynasty

However, I also agree with you that two hundred years later, European gun design was vastly improved, and they then outclassed China. (Though China didn't kneel until 1830 with the Opium Wars.)

The question is, were there any factors about the two hundred years after 1492 that made a difference for Europe? I think China was largely complacent, while Europeans were driven to compete with each other and innovate over the conquest of the Americas. The influx of ideas and resources made a big difference.


EDITED TO ADD: When I speak of "influx" I obviously don't mean that the Europeans just sat there and advancements came to them without work. (Though maybe that implication is what people object to?) The Europeans were motivated to compete with each other for New World resources - like gold, silver, sugar fields in the Caribbean, and tobacco and cotton in the Southeast. With great opportunities, they needed naval advancements to get there, military advancements to fight each other over territory there, and governmental advancements to manage a cross-oceanic empire. The discoveries and opportunities shook up everything in Europe, and motivated all peoples to capitalize on it. The Europeans accomplished a lot with the right motivation.

But I think that's true with all advancements. Environment and opportunity shape culture.

Quote from: jhkim on November 28, 2023, 12:27:25 PM
The question is, were there any factors about the two hundred years after 1492 that made a difference for Europe? I think China was largely complacent, while Europeans were driven to compete with each other and innovate over the conquest of the Americas. The influx of ideas and resources made a big difference.

Are you actually implying that Europe pilfered it's innovations from the Americas?

Quote from: BadApple on November 28, 2023, 01:46:47 PM

Quote from: jhkim on November 28, 2023, 12:27:25 PM
The question is, were there any factors about the two hundred years after 1492 that made a difference for Europe? I think China was largely complacent, while Europeans were driven to compete with each other and innovate over the conquest of the Americas. The influx of ideas and resources made a big difference.

Are you actually implying that Europe pilfered it's innovations from the Americas?

Cross-posting, I just added a note about that.

Advancements depend on resources. From a corporate point of view, if the company is nearly bankrupt and struggling to just get by, then they have no budget for Research & Development. If they have a monopoly and no competitors, they don't need R&D to make a profit. However, if they have a lot of lot of resources and need an edge over their competitors who also have a lot of resources, then the market is more dynamic.

The conquest of the Americas was extremely profitable for Europe. Some of it was direct - processed gold and silver from the Aztec and Incan empires, but also new domesticated species - like corn, potatoes, tobacco, and chocolate. One of the biggest resources was land, though. With 90% of Native Americans dying off from disease, and the survivors massively outclassed militarily, there were huge new tracts of land available unlike anything in the prior centuries. These opportunities created new markets that made Europe more dynamic.

QuoteI mean Europe was experiencing an Ice Age till 9,500 BC, then waves of settlers spread out through the landmass over thousands of years. Meanwhile those other places you mention were stable and settled.

So? Farming, animal husbandry, metallurgy started millenia later after end of Ice Age, AFTER European Hunter-Gatherers resettled Europe.
Before farming Middle-Easterns were just as much hunters as northeners.

QuoteEdit:  To be clear, this stands in direct opposition to Diamond in that he's trying to say that we just got lucky due to geography and I am saying that social structure and culture shaped innovation and development.  I believe that the N. American natives could have easily conquered the world if they could have cooperated with each other for a few hundred years rather than trying to commit genocide every 10 minutes.

But that's nonsensical because Europeans did not stopped warring each other - neither in Reneissance, nor Englightement nor XX century.
If anything modern warfare and strife become much stronger in modern times - and fall of unifying religion resulted in lack of common cultural cohesion that once linked lands from Spain to Lithuania.

But European innovation era did not happen in times of peace - but in times of using those vast industrial resources to murder each other way more strongly.
So I call bullshit on this cooperation worship. China compared to Europe had way better social cohesion with long centuries of unified Empire, and ethnic minorities firmly under Han's thumb.

It's a very entertaining and thought-provoking book. However, it started a conversation, and in the course of the conversation, a lot of the specific points haven't held up. But there are obvious cases like crops being able to propagate at the same latitude, keeping animals in your house versus outside, the relative value of wild animal stock for domestication, etc.

I think where it kind of falls apart is cases where a tool exists, but someone somewhere in the world had a brilliant idea about how to use it, and other places just didn't happen to. The Chinese used gunpowder for fireworks and fire lances, but didn't hit upon the idea of heavy cannon, or projectile muskets. The Vikings sailed all over the place, from the Arctic Circle to the Mediterranean, but people in Southern Europe, after the collapse of Rome, just kind of forgot how to go anywhere for a few hundred years. The South American peoples might not have had much call for wheeled carts, up on the mountains, but why didn't they use wheels in construction, like the Egyptians did? Even today, think about what we use the Internet for today, versus what it was like in 1995.

It's certainly a step up from simplistic ideas like "ice people" and "sun people," while making similar observations about the availability of food, the cheapness of life, and the available of certain minerals in creating a warlike people or a peaceful one, an urban people or a rustic one.

Quote from: pawsplay on November 30, 2023, 12:48:48 AM
I think where it kind of falls apart is cases where a tool exists, but someone somewhere in the world had a brilliant idea about how to use it, and other places just didn't happen to.

I think this is addressed in the book. I dispute some of your later examples, but in general, it's definitely true that there are some key ideas that get passed around.

1) A key insight in the book is that history tends to focus on metal and stone artifacts. This archeological view neglects soft technologies - especially domesticated grains, animals, and textiles.

2) Discoveries are enabled when a civilization has a food surplus such that they can invest in time-consuming other activities. Having the surplus to feed merchants, industry, and scholars is an important prerequisite.

3) Many discoveries depend on each other and on the resources to use them. Having bronze and later iron tools, for example, enables a lot of other construction that wasn't possible. Having writing depends on the food / resources to support a literate scholar class.

4) Diamond has many example of how discoveries along the Eurasian East-West axis built on each other. The sheer number of peoples working to make discoveries and passing them back and forth along that axis was far greater than the relatively isolated communities of Meso-America and South America.

Quote from: pawsplay on November 30, 2023, 12:48:48 AM
I think where it kind of falls apart is cases where a tool exists, but someone somewhere in the world had a brilliant idea about how to use it, and other places just didn't happen to. The Chinese used gunpowder for fireworks and fire lances, but didn't hit upon the idea of heavy cannon, or projectile muskets. The Vikings sailed all over the place, from the Arctic Circle to the Mediterranean, but people in Southern Europe, after the collapse of Rome, just kind of forgot how to go anywhere for a few hundred years.

I think these two are based on false premises. Just two posts ago, I cited about cannons and muskets in the Ming dynasty. Here was my quote:

QuoteThe Ming dynasty founder Zhu Yuanzhang, who declared his reign to be the era of Hongwu, or "Great Martiality," made prolific use of gunpowder weapons for his time. Early Ming military codes stipulated that ideally 10 percent of all soldiers should be gunners. By 1380, twelve years after the Ming dynasty's founding, the Ming army boasted around 130,000 gunners out of its 1.3 to 1.8 million strong army. At the outbreak of the Ming–Mong Mao War (1386–1388), the Ming general Mu Ying was ordered to produce a couple thousand hand cannons. Under Zhu Yuanzhang's successors, the percentage of gunners climbed higher and by the 1440s it reached 20 percent. In 1466 the ideal composition was 30 percent. In the aftermath of the Tumu Crisis of 1449, government authorities around the Tumu region collected from the field 5,000 sets of abandoned armour, 6,000 helmets, 30,000 firearms, 1,800 containers of gunpowder, and 440,000 crossbow bolts.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gunpowder_weapons_in_the_Ming_dynasty

So the Chinese did have cannons and muskets, and in 1492, their cannons and muskets were the equal of European designs. It wasn't that there was any idea lacking, but from 1500 to 1800, China wasn't pressured to develop better gun designs the way that Europe was. Europe had many high-risk / high-reward wars over competition for the New World - like trying to plunder the Spanish gold fleets.


Likewise, medieval Italian shipbuilding was superior to Roman shipbuilding. There are some examples here:

https://naval-encyclopedia.com/medieval-ships.php

Medieval Italians had better ships and sailed the existing trade routes more effectively than the Romans could. So this was also a question of motivation - i.e. what was the payoff for bigger fleets going further? The Vikings had massive gains to be had by improving their ship designs, because southern Europe was far richer and more advanced than they were.

For centuries, while Italians improved their ships, their potential gains were limited. Sailing farther and more effectively down the coast of Africa or up to the North Sea wasn't profitable for them. So while they did get better, for a long time, there was little profit to be had for improved shipbuilding. It wasn't until they could successfully navigate around the horn of Africa and across the Atlantic that profit started to roll in and the pace accelerated.

Well, your source starts with this:

QuoteThe medieval era devoted to the maritime scene the emergence of new techniques of construction and navigation, mainly from the North, with imports from the east (Arabs, and indirectly Chinese).

and it's mainly talking about later eras, but the point stands. You're talking about Medieval Italian ships, that ones that began the process of building Italian wealth. In the era I'm talking about, "Italy" hardly existed. From the fall or Rome in 476 and for a while, European navigation languished. Christopher Columbus was able to use bad science (even for his day) to get financing to go West.. In that same era, Vikings already criss-crossed the Atlantic, and Polynesians accomplished similar or more impressive feats all over the Pacific. This is despite mainland Europe retaining a lot of wealth, and Italy in particular preserving a lot of knowledge and technical skill that was relevant.

During the Ming period, the 1300s, there were also cannons and portable gun in Europe. And of course the Turkish and Europeans would develop a huge capacity. The evidence of gunpowder in Europe was slight for a long time; the evidence suggests good formulae traveled West, ultimately from China. But Europe and the Mediterranean built the guns, and by the 1500s, 1600s, the guns were moving back east. China was no longer the innovator. It was the application that made the difference. And Guns, Germs, and Steel doesn't really have a cogent explanation of how China went from being a muscular feudal state to a stagnant empire, to suffer a loss of might and fall behind in technological progress. If anything the hoary old "cycles of history" seems to address that in a more useful fashion.

So I think GGS does a great job of discussing culture, especially environmental culture, but as I said, doesn't really address the aspects more to do with sociology, philosophy of science, and technology per se. And the story sort of ends in the modern world; nowadays, technological powers find the natural resources, wherever they are, and take them. So the "end of history" is sort of the end of GGS's story, too.

This thread has only the most tenuous connection to RPGs. It's obviously politically motivated.

We read Diamond's book in my family when I was young. It was years later before I found out he had essentially fabricated most of his arguments and made a number of wild statements about melanisians (Papua New Guineans) being more intelligent than white people. This is part of an extensive pattern of fabrication or motivated reasoning.

The idea of environmental determinism appeals to a sense of fairness that most of us have, but it's also an inversion of reality in many cases. It's easy to trick people into believing it because it makes them feel good and moral. The truth is often ugly, complicated and unprofitable if you want to land a book deal after a life spent in academia.

When I think about cultures or races in the worlds I create for RPGs, think about them as peoples that change through time based on a combination of an essential essence that's part of their life in concert with their choices. What part of themselves do they send into the future. Geography can be a factor, but as with many cases in history, entire groups of people have decided to get up and leave if conditions become too unfavourable for the continuation of their way of life. Not so in every case, but it does represent what I think about.

Quote from: jhkim on November 28, 2023, 12:27:25 PM

Quote from: SHARK on November 28, 2023, 10:14:28 AM
Europe, on the other hand, saw MUCH they desired from China. Everything from gunpowder, silk clothing, spices, rice, colours, porcelain, and on and on. The technological, food, clothing, knowledge, everything that China offered Europe was a HUGE level up, across the board in a staggering number of areas of life.

So, why didn't China fucking colonize Europe?

Well, this is where you get into knowledge, conceptually, and practically, what you do with that knowledge. China knew gunpowder, and had fireworks and simple rockets and some few cannon.

Europe made mass-produced muskets, mass produced cannon, both siege artiller, and smaller field cannon, and then mounted rows of cannons onboard warships.

Within two centuries, Europe would return to China, and China would helplessly kneel before the impossible might of the British Empire.

So, China didn't get their shit together with using the technology in the same dynamic ways that Europe did.

I agree about the comparisons. GeekyBugle claims that in 1492, the Europeans were far superior in technology to China. I disagree, and your point here seems to agree with my view. This includes with gunpowder. In 1492, Chinese guns were roughly the equal of European guns. The Chinese had mass-produced cannons and matchlock hand cannons. For example,

QuoteThe Ming dynasty founder Zhu Yuanzhang, who declared his reign to be the era of Hongwu, or "Great Martiality," made prolific use of gunpowder weapons for his time. Early Ming military codes stipulated that ideally 10 percent of all soldiers should be gunners. By 1380, twelve years after the Ming dynasty's founding, the Ming army boasted around 130,000 gunners out of its 1.3 to 1.8 million strong army. At the outbreak of the Ming–Mong Mao War (1386–1388), the Ming general Mu Ying was ordered to produce a couple thousand hand cannons. Under Zhu Yuanzhang's successors, the percentage of gunners climbed higher and by the 1440s it reached 20 percent. In 1466 the ideal composition was 30 percent. In the aftermath of the Tumu Crisis of 1449, government authorities around the Tumu region collected from the field 5,000 sets of abandoned armour, 6,000 helmets, 30,000 firearms, 1,800 containers of gunpowder, and 440,000 crossbow bolts.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gunpowder_weapons_in_the_Ming_dynasty

However, I also agree with you that two hundred years later, European gun design was vastly improved, and they then outclassed China. (Though China didn't kneel until 1830 with the Opium Wars.)

The question is, were there any factors about the two hundred years after 1492 that made a difference for Europe? I think China was largely complacent, while Europeans were driven to compete with each other and innovate over the conquest of the Americas. The influx of ideas and resources made a big difference.


EDITED TO ADD: When I speak of "influx" I obviously don't mean that the Europeans just sat there and advancements came to them without work. (Though maybe that implication is what people object to?) The Europeans were motivated to compete with each other for New World resources - like gold, silver, sugar fields in the Caribbean, and tobacco and cotton in the Southeast. With great opportunities, they needed naval advancements to get there, military advancements to fight each other over territory there, and governmental advancements to manage a cross-oceanic empire. The discoveries and opportunities shook up everything in Europe, and motivated all peoples to capitalize on it. The Europeans accomplished a lot with the right motivation.

But I think that's true with all advancements. Environment and opportunity shape culture.

Greetings!

Yeah, Jhkim, it seems like we agree. *Laughing*

That is the interesting thing about the crossroads of culture, technology, resources, and motivation. (Political motivation? Industrial motivation? Economic motivation?--most certainly an alchemical blend of all of these dynamics.)

In 1492/1500's, China was the cultured, sophisticated colossus. Yes, the Chinese had vast stores of early guns, rockets, and primitive cannon. All of this was much beyond whatever the Europeans had at the time. As Professor Michael Wood--of Manchester University, Britain, explained in his program about China--the Chinese emperor laughed at the European ambassadors and their childlike gifts. At that time, the Europeans quite literally had nothing to offer China. The Dragon Empire had conquered a vast realm, far larger and richer than the Europeans could even fully comprehend.

Just over two centuries later though, yeah, the 1700's and into the 1800's, the Chinese Empire had to bow down to the might of the British Empire, as well as other European powers, such as the French, the Dutch, and the Portuguese.

Part of that harsh and grim new reality is embraced in dozens of small improvements, honed in years of constant strife, competition, and warfare amongst the Europeans--things like more reliable guns, more mobile cannon, weapons that were easier to learn and operate, and faster. In addition, most of the European governments and rulers got on top of scientists, engineers, growing corporations, and spurred them to drive for ever-greater discoveries, refinements, and efficiencies. These dynamics, again, lots of little improvements, add up to a *crushing* disparity between European forces and the forces fielded by the Chinese Empire.

When the British fleet sailed into the Chinese harbours, Chinese troops had rockets and guns, and lots of them. But they were primitive, awkward, and slow. Just like the Chinese cannon emplaced in their fortresses guarding the harbours--the Chinese cannon could not elevate, move, or turn. Thus, fast-moving British ships pushed through quickly, and unloaded devastation. Tens of thousands of casualties within days. Chinese fortresses blasted to rubble in just a few days. The entire Chinese army was nothing more than walking bags of jello for the British to annihilate.

That grim reality faced the Chinese Emperor. That is why the Chinese Emperor bowed down low, and surrendered everything to the British Empire.

The obvious question arises, "Why didn't the Chinese keep advancing their technology and knowledge?"

Simply, because they grew complacent, fat, and lazy. They had conquered everything and everyone within 3,000 miles in every direction. There was NO COMPETITOR. They were all subjugated by glorious China. There were no enemies. NONE. There was no competition, for anything. Noone crafted anything better than what was in China. Teachers, engineers, chemists, alchemists, they all got their knowledge from China. There were no new studies, no new breakthroughs, no drive to innovate, question, and strive for something different, faster, stronger, and tougher.

Contrast that environment of fat success, dominion, wealth and glory for what was going on in Europe. The Europeans were not only contending with the Ottoman Turks, but also each other. Fierce enemies were watching YOU just over the fence line, or from just down the road. Foreign armies could come marching against you to rape and conquer in a matter of days, or a few weeks. The threat was REAL, from the King and the rich elites, all down to the mud-covered peasant and urban working classes. Everyone knew that fierce enemies were always near and ready to pounce. That extreme sense of competition and danger, year after year, decade after decade, punctuated frequently by frenzies of blood and fire--made all the difference between European attitudes and what was going on in the Chinese Empire.

Muskets, field artillery, siege cannons, logistics, naval ships, and the whole system and social framework to get all this stuff going *quickly* was a constant for every European nation at the time. These European nation states thought and planned always in terms of weeks, and months, a season or two out. Always working, always studying, thinking, striving, and experimenting.

In contrast to the European ways, the Chinese Empire was like a gigantic bowl of molasses. Slow-thinking, slow-working, slow-moving. Everything mired by traditions, thoughts of family honour, permissions from the right bureaucrats, it was these kinds of dynamics that year after year, calcified in China to cause them to stagnate and wallow in complacency, decadence, and smug, self-aggrandizing arrogance.

European Kings knew they could be facing the executioner's axe next month and lose everything if they didn't get their shit together, and make sure everyone around them also got with the program. You see this sense of shrewdness, calculation, suspiciousness, and *urgency*--in every European court, whether you are talking about the Italians, the English, the Dutch, the French, the Spaniards, the Portuguese. They were all watching each other like hawks, and always had teams of assassins, commando's, and spies set up everywhere to constantly watch their competitors.

The Chinese Empire would have a very shocking encounter with the new reality, from far beyond their horizons.

That is how history goes though.

As you have mentioned, GGS has some interesting discussion, and makes some good points, but as an *argument*--Diamond has some very clear weaknesses and flaws in the work.

However, I don't think that makes the whole discussion worthless, or the entire book bad. The book presents some good information, and makes many interesting observations. I think that is ok. I don't expect any historian or scholar of whatever flavour to be entirely right on everything, nor do I expect to agree with them on everything, or whatever.

Guns, Germs, and Steel is *ONE* book in my personal library, amongst hundreds or several thousand books, perhaps. A good several hundred scholarly books for certain on history and such like. I'm glad that I read "Guns, Germs, and Steel." It is an interesting book, with lots of interesting observations and snippets of lore. Thought-provoking. It contributed to my knowledge, and I have of course read many other scholars and authors, historians and so on.

I think it is good to always be reading, learning, and growing. Even if you hate an author's arguments, or you later learn that major sections of the argument were flawed, that is ok too. It sharpens the mind, and makes you embrace the arguments, the studies, the research. Grapple with it, confront it, and learn from the book. It's all good.

This book, like many, can be helpful when a GM sets out to create their game world, or is chewing on thoughts about their campaign, and how stuff within it works, and why. Why do some kingdoms rise, while others fall? Are there crossroads of crisis in time, where such moments in time are a make or break zone for the kingdom, the tribe, or culture? What kind of factors contribute to some people's success, while others fail?

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Quote from: BadApple on November 28, 2023, 08:32:59 AM

Quote from: Naburimannu on November 28, 2023, 07:31:15 AM

Quote from: BadApple on November 28, 2023, 04:04:43 AM
Even the more regional social structures in India and and China didn't have the larger social structure cohesion that say England had. 

The major powers of Europe really took off in the age of enlightenment though they were improving along the same rate as they were improving their society.  Though it lagged by a few years, the rate of innovation increased with the level of individual rights and sense of belonging to a nation. 

Edit:  To be clear, this stands in direct opposition to Diamond in that he's trying to say that we just got lucky due to geography and I am saying that social structure and culture shaped innovation and development.  I believe that the N. American natives could have easily conquered the world if they could have cooperated with each other for a few hundred years rather than trying to commit genocide every 10 minutes.

As somebody who's married to a historian specialising in England in the 15th-16th centuries, this really doesn't make sense. What "social structure cohesion" are you talking about? Wars of the Roses, anyone? Henry's break with Rome and the multiple decades of disruption that ensued?

Sure, East Anglia had a prosperous merchant class during a lot of this time (we were literally doing primary research in Bury St. Edmunds yesterday), but you might need to be a little more precise about "social cohesion" given that there was also plenty of prosperity & middle class in Asian cultures at the time.

Age of Enlightenment is usually later 17th through 18th centuries, so you might be off by a hundred or a hundred and fifty years? Or confusing cause with effect?

In the seventeenth century, in the onset to the Age of Enlightenment, you had the Thirty Years' War, where a large fraction of Germany is killed; it's not clear to me how you compare that to "N. American natives ... trying to commit genocide every 10 minutes". There's precious little reliable documentation about what the North American natives were up to before 1492 at the level you seem to be asking for - we know they had well-developed widespread trade networks, but how much else?

Every single country has had internal divides but the ability to coalesce rather than keeping up a divisions afterwards is what I'm referring to.  It wasn't a flip of the switch event but a slow change in English culture that took centuries and hit some rough patches along the way.  The build up of a merchant class and the precursors to industrialization are significant evidence that there was a willingness to work together in larger groups than the typical "monkey brain" tribal groups.  Despite having watched their fathers kill each other, there was a willingness to set the issues aside and cooperate.

That's not so say that the differences were that great between various groups.  I would say that success was had at being just slightly better than others.  All it took was a little more social cohesion to beat out the Chinese.  Otherwise, I would be of mostly Asian decent and England may well have been a quaint little island country that was once the colony of the Ming Dynasty.  One of my favorite things about learning history is those cool moments when "if it weren't for this teacup" then things would have been very different.

As far as Native American wars and the constant inter-tribal and intra-tribal warfare, we have quite a bit.  Currently existing cultural elements, oral tradition, and actual archeological evidence demonstrate this.  The Iroquois nations council was a great innovation of diplomacy but it didn't stop the small scale conflicts that were frequently flaring up between the members.  Yes, the best we have is a fuzzy image pieced together from indirect data but it holds up.

I would love to give you references but I have shit for bandwidth right now.  I also recognize that there is no crystal clear answer to such a complicated question as to "why human?"

Suffice it to say, we are looking at the crossroads of archeology, history, anthropology, philosophy, sociology, and social psychology.  This stuff is complicated and it cannot be both accurately and concisely expressed simultaneously.     

Greetings!

Good stuff, Badapple!

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Quote from: jhkim on November 30, 2023, 09:17:21 AM

Quote from: pawsplay on November 30, 2023, 12:48:48 AM
I think where it kind of falls apart is cases where a tool exists, but someone somewhere in the world had a brilliant idea about how to use it, and other places just didn't happen to.

I think this is addressed in the book. I dispute some of your later examples, but in general, it's definitely true that there are some key ideas that get passed around.

1) A key insight in the book is that history tends to focus on metal and stone artifacts. This archeological view neglects soft technologies - especially domesticated grains, animals, and textiles.

2) Discoveries are enabled when a civilization has a food surplus such that they can invest in time-consuming other activities. Having the surplus to feed merchants, industry, and scholars is an important prerequisite.

3) Many discoveries depend on each other and on the resources to use them. Having bronze and later iron tools, for example, enables a lot of other construction that wasn't possible. Having writing depends on the food / resources to support a literate scholar class.

4) Diamond has many example of how discoveries along the Eurasian East-West axis built on each other. The sheer number of peoples working to make discoveries and passing them back and forth along that axis was far greater than the relatively isolated communities of Meso-America and South America.

Quote from: pawsplay on November 30, 2023, 12:48:48 AM
I think where it kind of falls apart is cases where a tool exists, but someone somewhere in the world had a brilliant idea about how to use it, and other places just didn't happen to. The Chinese used gunpowder for fireworks and fire lances, but didn't hit upon the idea of heavy cannon, or projectile muskets. The Vikings sailed all over the place, from the Arctic Circle to the Mediterranean, but people in Southern Europe, after the collapse of Rome, just kind of forgot how to go anywhere for a few hundred years.

I think these two are based on false premises. Just two posts ago, I cited about cannons and muskets in the Ming dynasty. Here was my quote:

QuoteThe Ming dynasty founder Zhu Yuanzhang, who declared his reign to be the era of Hongwu, or "Great Martiality," made prolific use of gunpowder weapons for his time. Early Ming military codes stipulated that ideally 10 percent of all soldiers should be gunners. By 1380, twelve years after the Ming dynasty's founding, the Ming army boasted around 130,000 gunners out of its 1.3 to 1.8 million strong army. At the outbreak of the Ming–Mong Mao War (1386–1388), the Ming general Mu Ying was ordered to produce a couple thousand hand cannons. Under Zhu Yuanzhang's successors, the percentage of gunners climbed higher and by the 1440s it reached 20 percent. In 1466 the ideal composition was 30 percent. In the aftermath of the Tumu Crisis of 1449, government authorities around the Tumu region collected from the field 5,000 sets of abandoned armour, 6,000 helmets, 30,000 firearms, 1,800 containers of gunpowder, and 440,000 crossbow bolts.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gunpowder_weapons_in_the_Ming_dynasty

So the Chinese did have cannons and muskets, and in 1492, their cannons and muskets were the equal of European designs. It wasn't that there was any idea lacking, but from 1500 to 1800, China wasn't pressured to develop better gun designs the way that Europe was. Europe had many high-risk / high-reward wars over competition for the New World - like trying to plunder the Spanish gold fleets.


Likewise, medieval Italian shipbuilding was superior to Roman shipbuilding. There are some examples here:

https://naval-encyclopedia.com/medieval-ships.php

Medieval Italians had better ships and sailed the existing trade routes more effectively than the Romans could. So this was also a question of motivation - i.e. what was the payoff for bigger fleets going further? The Vikings had massive gains to be had by improving their ship designs, because southern Europe was far richer and more advanced than they were.

For centuries, while Italians improved their ships, their potential gains were limited. Sailing farther and more effectively down the coast of Africa or up to the North Sea wasn't profitable for them. So while they did get better, for a long time, there was little profit to be had for improved shipbuilding. It wasn't until they could successfully navigate around the horn of Africa and across the Atlantic that profit started to roll in and the pace accelerated.

Greetings!

Well, Jhkim, competition for resources from the New World was certainly very important. However, during this period, 1500 A.D.-1800 A.D., Europe had many other conflicts and threats to deal with, right there in their backyard. Whether such flashpoints were over religion, political ideology, territory, or other measurable resources, constant conflict and danger was present, for every European nation, quite apart from whatever they were doing--or hoped to be doing--in the New World.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Quote from: SHARK on January 08, 2024, 03:19:23 AM

Quote from: jhkim on November 30, 2023, 09:17:21 AM
Medieval Italians had better ships and sailed the existing trade routes more effectively than the Romans could. So this was also a question of motivation - i.e. what was the payoff for bigger fleets going further? The Vikings had massive gains to be had by improving their ship designs, because southern Europe was far richer and more advanced than they were.

For centuries, while Italians improved their ships, their potential gains were limited. Sailing farther and more effectively down the coast of Africa or up to the North Sea wasn't profitable for them. So while they did get better, for a long time, there was little profit to be had for improved shipbuilding. It wasn't until they could successfully navigate around the horn of Africa and across the Atlantic that profit started to roll in and the pace accelerated.

Well, Jhkim, competition for resources from the New World was certainly very important. However, during this period, 1500 A.D.-1800 A.D., Europe had many other conflicts and threats to deal with, right there in their backyard. Whether such flashpoints were over religion, political ideology, territory, or other measurable resources, constant conflict and danger was present, for every European nation, quite apart from whatever they were doing--or hoped to be doing--in the New World.

Sure, Europe had internal conflicts. Still, within history, having lots of war doesn't inherently mean a region is destined for technological achievement. Often in history, interminable war just means a region becomes a backwater hellhole.

Compare the period 1200-1500 and the period 1500-1800.

In the period from 1200 to 1500 there were plenty of internal conflicts, and many incremental advancements.

But that was nothing like the complete upheaval of society and developments from 1500 to 1800, which saw a transformation of religion and philosophy, the birth of science, and massive revolutions in industry and technology.

---

It is very clear that conquest of the New World had a huge effect on Europe. And I think it's quite plausible that without the New World, the European period 1500-1800 would look more like 1200-1500.

---

To keep this related to RPGs, this brings to mind various "what if" and alternate history scenarios. I suggested the possibility what if the Atlantic were much wider and the Pacific much narrower, such that it was more practical for Asia to colonize the Aztecs, Incas, and California. I think it could be an interesting parallel with Japan more like England with colonies in California and the Northeast, while China is growing rich from conquest of the Aztecs and Incas, but both are having trouble keeping control of their rich colonies.

There are a lot of other alternate histories in various RPG books like GURPS Alternate Earths and GURPS Alternate Earths 2. It can be a lot of fun to explore other possibilities, and it can add to the plausibility if one takes into account things like the factors in Guns, Germs, and Steel. There is a timeline called Ming-3 where China dominates Europe in the modern era, but I find it very implausible. As we agree, China grew very stagnant during the centuries of the Ming dynasty, with no threats to its dominance. But China had more dynamic and innovative periods prior to the Ming.

I know a lot more about earlier periods so I could be wrong but it seems to me New World money was wasted attacking England (Spanish Armada) and Northern Europe (30 Years War). Money was a factor but the choices and prejudices of individual leaders was a big factor as well. Imbred Hapsburgs screwed up, imagine a new crusade with all that money bankrolling a crusade to roll back Islam instead.

Quote from: Ruprecht on January 08, 2024, 02:18:22 PM
I know a lot more about earlier periods so I could be wrong but it seems to me New World money was wasted attacking England (Spanish Armada) and Northern Europe (30 Years War). Money was a factor but the choices and prejudices of individual leaders was a big factor as well. Imbred Hapsburgs screwed up, imagine a new crusade with all that money bankrolling a crusade to roll back Islam instead.

It's an interesting question. The importance of individual leaders is always a big question for alternate histories. If Hitler was killed in his youth, would nazism never have arisen? I tend to think nazism would still have happened in some form - it just would have had different leaders. There were bigger social forces at work.

With the crusades, a big factor was economic. During the Islamic Golden Age (622 - 1258), the Islamic states were relatively advanced and prosperous. There were riches to be had in raiding them. But particularly with overfarming, desertification, and climate change, the center of Islam was turning barren - and raiding them slowly became less profitable. (That is, until the modern age when oil was discovered and became important.)

To get a major bankroll for a new crusade post-1492, I think there would need to be a greater economic incentive than there was in real-world history. One alternate history might be to give a temporary boost to Islamic countries, which motivates a more widespread Christian crusade against them. Maybe the Songhai Empire could have gotten involved in the conquest of America? Another option might be to bring up the importance of oil earlier in history by a technological innovation.

Quote from: jhkim on January 09, 2024, 05:35:53 PM

Quote from: Ruprecht on January 08, 2024, 02:18:22 PM
I know a lot more about earlier periods so I could be wrong but it seems to me New World money was wasted attacking England (Spanish Armada) and Northern Europe (30 Years War). Money was a factor but the choices and prejudices of individual leaders was a big factor as well. Imbred Hapsburgs screwed up, imagine a new crusade with all that money bankrolling a crusade to roll back Islam instead.

It's an interesting question. The importance of individual leaders is always a big question for alternate histories. If Hitler was killed in his youth, would nazism never have arisen? I tend to think nazism would still have happened in some form - it just would have had different leaders. There were bigger social forces at work.

With the crusades, a big factor was economic. During the Islamic Golden Age (622 - 1258), the Islamic states were relatively advanced and prosperous. There were riches to be had in raiding them. But particularly with overfarming, desertification, and climate change, the center of Islam was turning barren - and raiding them slowly became less profitable. (That is, until the modern age when oil was discovered and became important.)

To get a major bankroll for a new crusade post-1492, I think there would need to be a greater economic incentive than there was in real-world history. One alternate history might be to give a temporary boost to Islamic countries, which motivates a more widespread Christian crusade against them. Maybe the Songhai Empire could have gotten involved in the conquest of America? Another option might be to bring up the importance of oil earlier in history by a technological innovation.

Or just bitterness among Spanish for centuries of occupation.

Greetings!

Yeah, certainly all of those ancient Christian lands, in Egypt, Palestine, Syria, Cappadocia, Galatia--that were overthrown and conquered by the Muslims--as well as Spain, of course, I imagine that all was plenty motivation for launching the Crusades.

Oh, yeah, and the millions of White Europeans that were taken as slaves by the Muslims and raped and plundered, that also was a motivating factor. For centuries, entire sections of coastline throughout Spain, and Southern France, were uninhabited, or much reduced--because of Muslim marauders attacking relentlessly every year, and dragging European Christians off to absolute bondage and crushing slavery.

That fact was always on the mind of the Europeans. The Europeans were tired of being beaten down, raped, and plundered by the Muslim hordes.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Quote from: SHARK on January 09, 2024, 07:54:33 PM
Greetings!

Yeah, certainly all of those ancient Christian lands, in Egypt, Palestine, Syria, Cappadocia, Galatia--that were overthrown and conquered by the Muslims--as well as Spain, of course, I imagine that all was plenty motivation for launching the Crusades.

Oh, yeah, and the millions of White Europeans that were taken as slaves by the Muslims and raped and plundered, that also was a motivating factor. For centuries, entire sections of coastline throughout Spain, and Southern France, were uninhabited, or much reduced--because of Muslim marauders attacking relentlessly every year, and dragging European Christians off to absolute bondage and crushing slavery.

That fact was always on the mind of the Europeans. The Europeans were tired of being beaten down, raped, and plundered by the Muslim hordes.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Hollywood reliably informs me that the Crusades were due to bigoted, ignorant Christian zealots, impotently trying to erase the advanced and civilized cultures of the Muslim world.

Quote from: Grognard GM on January 09, 2024, 08:09:41 PM

Quote from: SHARK on January 09, 2024, 07:54:33 PM
Greetings!

Yeah, certainly all of those ancient Christian lands, in Egypt, Palestine, Syria, Cappadocia, Galatia--that were overthrown and conquered by the Muslims--as well as Spain, of course, I imagine that all was plenty motivation for launching the Crusades.

Oh, yeah, and the millions of White Europeans that were taken as slaves by the Muslims and raped and plundered, that also was a motivating factor. For centuries, entire sections of coastline throughout Spain, and Southern France, were uninhabited, or much reduced--because of Muslim marauders attacking relentlessly every year, and dragging European Christians off to absolute bondage and crushing slavery.

That fact was always on the mind of the Europeans. The Europeans were tired of being beaten down, raped, and plundered by the Muslim hordes.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Hollywood reliably informs me that the Crusades were due to bigoted, ignorant Christian zealots, impotently trying to erase the advanced and civilized cultures of the Muslim world.

Greetings!

*Laughing* That had me choking on my coffee from laughing, Grognard GM!

Funny! But yes, very sad, and enraging, at the same time. It highlights why people everywhere must stand and fight for the truth. Hollywood pushes that BS, but also many college professors, and academic books. When I was in college, I blasted many such college books, and the college professors that sought to push this BS in class. A few times, my resistance was well-received, and even applauded. At other times...yeah, you can imagine it was not appreciated well at all.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK