3 ms·

So they had to burn many trees. Stupid question: were those regions with many forests ruling other parts of the world because they had access to trees? I don’t

by baxtr 6y ago

So they had to burn many trees. Stupid question: were those regions with many forests ruling other parts of the world because they had access to trees? I don’t quite remember if something like that was mentioned in Guns, Germs and Steel

bluGill 6y ago
not really. To rule over other regions you need a good leader (probably several). Good has several senses here. You need to make good plans, and you need enough followers. The first because bad plans means your army is lost. The second because without enough soldiers you will lose. Note that better ability in one leads to less need of the other. Either way, a good ruler seeing a lack of resources can go take them from those who have.
- smogcutter 6y ago
  I read parent’s question as looking at a bigger scale (along the lines of guns, germs & steel). Leaders come and go, and on a pretty short time frame compared to mass deforestation. The question is more, if you don’t have access to enough wood for a good iron supply chain, are you fucked in the long term? If you don’t have a competitive amount of metal to begin with, “just go take it from someone else” is a lot easier said than done. I’d be really interested to hear a well researched answer, but my guess is the answer is ambiguous. When you think of areas with little available wood, they’re mostly pretty marginal to begin with. Deserts, grasslands, etc. Places without enough water to support major agriculture and centralization. Maybe part of the reason people might stay in a marginal area is because it’s hard to get enough metal to conquer something better. But what about someone like the Mongols? They couldn’t possibly have a huge charcoal-making operation. So where’s their iron coming from? Trade? (For horses, maybe?) Plunder? But if you’re gonna kill someone and take his stuff, you need your own sword to do it with. The iron-availability ball has to get rolling somewhere else before you can really start conquering anyone. The big exception is Japan (although their problem is geology not timber), but their geographic isolation means they don’t really answer parents question about what happens to an iron-poor (or rather iron production input poor) society next door to an iron-rich one.
hristov 6y ago
Not sure. That would be an interesting thing to study. There are definitely civilizations that died or declined because they cut off most of their trees. Indonesia, Athens and even the Dutch are examples of those. But that is mostly attributed to the inability to built ships.
sunstone 6y ago
If I recall correctly GG&S says Japan annexed Hokaido because they needed more trees.

by baxtr 6y ago

bluGill 6y ago

not really. To rule over other regions you need a good leader (probably several). Good has several senses here. You need to make good plans, and you need enough followers. The first because bad plans means your army is lost. The second because without enough soldiers you will lose. Note that better ability in one leads to less need of the other. Either way, a good ruler seeing a lack of resources can go take them from those who have.

smogcutter 6y ago
I read parent’s question as looking at a bigger scale (along the lines of guns, germs & steel). Leaders come and go, and on a pretty short time frame compared to mass deforestation. The question is more, if you don’t have access to enough wood for a good iron supply chain, are you fucked in the long term? If you don’t have a competitive amount of metal to begin with, “just go take it from someone else” is a lot easier said than done. I’d be really interested to hear a well researched answer, but my guess is the answer is ambiguous. When you think of areas with little available wood, they’re mostly pretty marginal to begin with. Deserts, grasslands, etc. Places without enough water to support major agriculture and centralization. Maybe part of the reason people might stay in a marginal area is because it’s hard to get enough metal to conquer something better. But what about someone like the Mongols? They couldn’t possibly have a huge charcoal-making operation. So where’s their iron coming from? Trade? (For horses, maybe?) Plunder? But if you’re gonna kill someone and take his stuff, you need your own sword to do it with. The iron-availability ball has to get rolling somewhere else before you can really start conquering anyone. The big exception is Japan (although their problem is geology not timber), but their geographic isolation means they don’t really answer parents question about what happens to an iron-poor (or rather iron production input poor) society next door to an iron-rich one.

hristov 6y ago

Not sure. That would be an interesting thing to study. There are definitely civilizations that died or declined because they cut off most of their trees. Indonesia, Athens and even the Dutch are examples of those. But that is mostly attributed to the inability to built ships.

sunstone 6y ago

If I recall correctly GG&S says Japan annexed Hokaido because they needed more trees.