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).



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).



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 - 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.