7 ms·

The Global Chessboard

84 points by enigmatic02 5y ago

z3ugma 5y ago
This reads like a "just-so story", rather than having much archaeological and historical rigor on which to base its assertions.
- bhrgunatha 5y ago
  Maybe it's a matter of intended audience. As a philistine in those subjects, it was a fascinating read for me and introduced ideas I hadn't considered before (proven or not).
lumost 5y ago
Reading this, and living in the northeast I can't help but think that either history has forgotten an advanced East Coast civilization or there is something that makes settling the East intrinsically difficult. The East Coast has bountiful fishing grounds, mild winters in the southeast, and great farmland throughout. There are natural harbors and the intracoastal highway to foster trade and concentrate resources. Why do we not see evidence of monumental construction, or ancient cities?
- nine_k 5y ago
  Apparently a lot of people lived there, and prospered, in a way. To build a huge monument that persists for millennia, a huge concentration of normally distributed resources is needed. This requires a central power that controls a significant territory and extracts these resources from the inhabitants, and directs them to work on the monument, instead of pursuing their local interests. Such a central power is likely to arise only when it is an improvement over the peer-to-peer tribe-based societies that the East Coast native Americans apparently had. The things you list are exactly the reasons why an advanced technological civilization did not arise in the region. There was no need for it, people were unlikely to die from hunger if they relied just on hunting, gathering, fishing, and some mild animal husbandry and lightweight farming. Eurasian Middle East, the cradle of Western civilization, was not so idyllic. For sustainable farming on its arid land, it required a system of canals, and a system of control that made a lot of people maintain them, even if it helped their neighbors more than themselves. Uneven crops and periodic crop failures required centralized storage and rationing to avoid famine. Those who were in control of this life machinery became kings of ever-increasing power. Tribes that refused irrigation and centralized agriculture either died eventually of drought and famine, or turned into nomadic shepherds. In either case, they were quickly outnumbered by the people who practiced centralized agriculture, were subjects to a (brutal) king, and all passed some resources to that king. Now the king could command to build an expensive, impractical, but majestic monument which we eventually got to see. Or, more practically, such a culture could build a city around the grain storage and king's seat, following the power structure. A city, with its concentration, gives rise to deeper specialization of trades, faster exchange of goods, faster exchange and accumulation of knowledge, etc.
systemvoltage 5y ago
I couldn't find the source of these wonderful topographic maps. Does anyone know?
- tyingq 5y ago
  Looks like "FrankRamspott" was the original source. Reads like he did a 3d render using public domain source data. https://www.istockphoto.com/photo/usa-3d-render-topographic-map-neutral-border-gm909033464-250388731 https://www.istockphoto.com/photo/usa-3d-render-topographic-...
Gunax 5y ago
I know petty much nothing, but I cannot help but feel that knowing the result, any answer is equally explainable. If Greenland ruled the world we would all be discussing some nonsense about how easily sleds glide over ice. Nevermind that this supposes a geographic explaination--I imagine the author is a geographer. But an economist examines it through economic policy, an anthropologist through culture.. etc. who I am sure all have their own 'obvious and inevitable' justifications.
- rwallace 5y ago
  > I know petty much nothing, but I cannot help but feel that knowing the result, any answer is equally explainable. If Greenland ruled the world we would all be discussing some nonsense about how easily sleds glide over ice. It is true that, no matter what state of the world we observed, we would try to come up with the best explanations we could, but if we use that as a reason to dismiss explanations of the actual state of affairs, we would dismiss any explanation of anything. > Nevermind that this supposes a geographic explaination--I imagine the author is a geographer. But an economist examines it through economic policy, an anthropologist through culture.. etc. who I am sure all have their own 'obvious and inevitable' justifications. Sure. Reality is complex. It should be no surprise that many disciplines have relevant contributions to explaining it. The fact that economic and cultural considerations are also relevant to history, is no reason to dismiss geographical considerations.
- sellyme 5y ago
  > If Greenland ruled the world we would all be discussing some nonsense about how easily sleds glide over ice. This criticism only makes sense if you believe that Greenland could realistically have ruled the world with no significant differences in geography or technology to our real world. If we stumbled upon some alternative universe where Greenland in fact was the dominant empire, the idea that something was different enough in their universe such that colder climates were an advantage would absolutely be the first thing investigated. > Nevermind that this supposes a geographic explaination [...] But an economist examines it through economic policy, an anthropologist through culture.. I don't know if you read the first article in this series, but the author definitely touches on those factors, particularly with regards to the Silk Road, and how empires can thrive through competition if they're close (but not too close).
ackbar03 5y ago
I remember someone else pointing this out before as well, I forgot who, I think it was like Peter Thiel or Jamie Dimon or someone. He said something like "the US has some of the most natural advantages of all countries being a large stable country mostly isolated by the two oceans. Yet it chooses to maintain military presence and involve itself in wars all around the middle east, Asia and what not"
pjmorris 5y ago
This reminds me of an old Stratfor article. 'The Geopolitics of the United States, Part 1: The Inevitable Empire' [0]. [0] https://worldview.stratfor.com/article/geopolitics-united-states-part-1-inevitable-empire https://worldview.stratfor.com/article/geopolitics-united-st...
sgt101 5y ago
The USA of today could easily have ended as more than three states - Texas could have ended independent or as part of Mexico - The southern states could have "won" the civil war and gained sustained sovereignty - The West & California in particular could have become an independent entity. - Alsaka might have been retained by the Russians or grabbed by the Canadians Why did this not happen - one argument is that the Federal Government of the USA gained and held control of the Californian gold fields for the decades before secession, transforming it's power and capability and the structure of the US economy. Northern industry was capitalised and the investment and market opportunity created power and capability that founded an empire, the population of New England went west anchoring the USA's presence on the west coast. If the south had seceded 20 or 25 years earlier the story would likely have been very different. With the USA split Mexico could have grabbed Texas, or parts of it - potentially the oil fields before oil was a thing. Perhaps the southern states would have managed to win and maintain territorial integrity - the USA smashed Mexico in the war in the 1840's but this would not be the USA vs Mexico. My point is that this is not inevitable - there are many reasons why the USA could have been radically different from the USA of today - that it emerged as it did was a matter of luck, as many have observed in the past: "There is a Providence that protects idiots, drunkards, children and the United States of America. ... " Otto Von Bismarck
- Lammy 5y ago
  > With the USA split Mexico could have grabbed Texas, or parts of it Some people imagined the other way around https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knights_of_the_Golden_Circle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knights_of_the_Golden_Circle
- jsnell 5y ago
  It does not look like Bismarck actually said that.
michael-ax 5y ago
An orbital perspective on 2..3..4..5000 years of human history in a 10 minute read. What's not to like?
jessaustin 5y ago
So the US doesn’t need to worry about its physical integrity or waste huge sums on a military race with its neighbors. It’s safe, and that’s more than most countries can say. USA spends more on military than next ten nations (most of whom are its "allies") put together. In the last year of Trump, the increase in spending was greater than the total of its "great rival" Russia. Pentagon claims to have no idea where the money goes, and is proud to be unauditable. There must be some details that this geographic technique misses...
- sellyme 5y ago
  The "with its neighbors" there is important. The waste described is that in spending a century warring with the country next doors opens you up to being rolled over by someone from another continent who spent that century developing in peace and prosperity. That's not really as relevant in the United States' modern geopolitical position where military spending is about exerting a global sphere of influence.
- zokier 5y ago
  US doesn't need to spend as much as it does on military to defend its physical integrity and sovereignty. US chooses to spend, which is altogether different matter.
Merrill 5y ago
Were it not for an explicitly European political event, the British colonies might have been walled off from the Mississippi Valley by the Appalachians, and separate countries might have occupied the territory. The Seven Years War (1756–1763) resulted in the British taking control of Canada and French possessions east of the Mississippi. The British colonies on the coast, many of which had no defined western boundary, then wished to extend westward. This was resisted by the British Crown, which asserted control from London over the new territories. The colonists then fought the War of Independence by which then won control of the Ohio Valley and south from Britain. This enabled the colonies to expand via upstate New York and across the mountain passes. The French Revolution and Napoleonic Wars further weakened France and Spain resulting in our acquisition of Florida and Louisiana on very favorable terms.

84 points by enigmatic02 5y ago

This reads like a "just-so story", rather than having much archaeological and historical rigor on which to base its assertions.

bhrgunatha 5y ago
Maybe it's a matter of intended audience. As a philistine in those subjects, it was a fascinating read for me and introduced ideas I hadn't considered before (proven or not).

lumost 5y ago

Reading this, and living in the northeast I can't help but think that either history has forgotten an advanced East Coast civilization or there is something that makes settling the East intrinsically difficult. The East Coast has bountiful fishing grounds, mild winters in the southeast, and great farmland throughout. There are natural harbors and the intracoastal highway to foster trade and concentrate resources. Why do we not see evidence of monumental construction, or ancient cities?

nine_k 5y ago
Apparently a lot of people lived there, and prospered, in a way. To build a huge monument that persists for millennia, a huge concentration of normally distributed resources is needed. This requires a central power that controls a significant territory and extracts these resources from the inhabitants, and directs them to work on the monument, instead of pursuing their local interests. Such a central power is likely to arise only when it is an improvement over the peer-to-peer tribe-based societies that the East Coast native Americans apparently had. The things you list are exactly the reasons why an advanced technological civilization did not arise in the region. There was no need for it, people were unlikely to die from hunger if they relied just on hunting, gathering, fishing, and some mild animal husbandry and lightweight farming. Eurasian Middle East, the cradle of Western civilization, was not so idyllic. For sustainable farming on its arid land, it required a system of canals, and a system of control that made a lot of people maintain them, even if it helped their neighbors more than themselves. Uneven crops and periodic crop failures required centralized storage and rationing to avoid famine. Those who were in control of this life machinery became kings of ever-increasing power. Tribes that refused irrigation and centralized agriculture either died eventually of drought and famine, or turned into nomadic shepherds. In either case, they were quickly outnumbered by the people who practiced centralized agriculture, were subjects to a (brutal) king, and all passed some resources to that king. Now the king could command to build an expensive, impractical, but majestic monument which we eventually got to see. Or, more practically, such a culture could build a city around the grain storage and king's seat, following the power structure. A city, with its concentration, gives rise to deeper specialization of trades, faster exchange of goods, faster exchange and accumulation of knowledge, etc.

systemvoltage 5y ago

I couldn't find the source of these wonderful topographic maps. Does anyone know?

tyingq 5y ago
Looks like "FrankRamspott" was the original source. Reads like he did a 3d render using public domain source data. https://www.istockphoto.com/photo/usa-3d-render-topographic-map-neutral-border-gm909033464-250388731 https://www.istockphoto.com/photo/usa-3d-render-topographic-...

Gunax 5y ago

I know petty much nothing, but I cannot help but feel that knowing the result, any answer is equally explainable. If Greenland ruled the world we would all be discussing some nonsense about how easily sleds glide over ice. Nevermind that this supposes a geographic explaination--I imagine the author is a geographer. But an economist examines it through economic policy, an anthropologist through culture.. etc. who I am sure all have their own 'obvious and inevitable' justifications.

rwallace 5y ago
> I know petty much nothing, but I cannot help but feel that knowing the result, any answer is equally explainable. If Greenland ruled the world we would all be discussing some nonsense about how easily sleds glide over ice. It is true that, no matter what state of the world we observed, we would try to come up with the best explanations we could, but if we use that as a reason to dismiss explanations of the actual state of affairs, we would dismiss any explanation of anything. > Nevermind that this supposes a geographic explaination--I imagine the author is a geographer. But an economist examines it through economic policy, an anthropologist through culture.. etc. who I am sure all have their own 'obvious and inevitable' justifications. Sure. Reality is complex. It should be no surprise that many disciplines have relevant contributions to explaining it. The fact that economic and cultural considerations are also relevant to history, is no reason to dismiss geographical considerations.
sellyme 5y ago
> If Greenland ruled the world we would all be discussing some nonsense about how easily sleds glide over ice. This criticism only makes sense if you believe that Greenland could realistically have ruled the world with no significant differences in geography or technology to our real world. If we stumbled upon some alternative universe where Greenland in fact was the dominant empire, the idea that something was different enough in their universe such that colder climates were an advantage would absolutely be the first thing investigated. > Nevermind that this supposes a geographic explaination [...] But an economist examines it through economic policy, an anthropologist through culture.. I don't know if you read the first article in this series, but the author definitely touches on those factors, particularly with regards to the Silk Road, and how empires can thrive through competition if they're close (but not too close).

ackbar03 5y ago

I remember someone else pointing this out before as well, I forgot who, I think it was like Peter Thiel or Jamie Dimon or someone. He said something like "the US has some of the most natural advantages of all countries being a large stable country mostly isolated by the two oceans. Yet it chooses to maintain military presence and involve itself in wars all around the middle east, Asia and what not"

pjmorris 5y ago

This reminds me of an old Stratfor article. 'The Geopolitics of the United States, Part 1: The Inevitable Empire' [0]. [0] https://worldview.stratfor.com/article/geopolitics-united-states-part-1-inevitable-empire https://worldview.stratfor.com/article/geopolitics-united-st...

sgt101 5y ago

The USA of today could easily have ended as more than three states - Texas could have ended independent or as part of Mexico - The southern states could have "won" the civil war and gained sustained sovereignty - The West & California in particular could have become an independent entity. - Alsaka might have been retained by the Russians or grabbed by the Canadians Why did this not happen - one argument is that the Federal Government of the USA gained and held control of the Californian gold fields for the decades before secession, transforming it's power and capability and the structure of the US economy. Northern industry was capitalised and the investment and market opportunity created power and capability that founded an empire, the population of New England went west anchoring the USA's presence on the west coast. If the south had seceded 20 or 25 years earlier the story would likely have been very different. With the USA split Mexico could have grabbed Texas, or parts of it - potentially the oil fields before oil was a thing. Perhaps the southern states would have managed to win and maintain territorial integrity - the USA smashed Mexico in the war in the 1840's but this would not be the USA vs Mexico. My point is that this is not inevitable - there are many reasons why the USA could have been radically different from the USA of today - that it emerged as it did was a matter of luck, as many have observed in the past: "There is a Providence that protects idiots, drunkards, children and the United States of America. ... " Otto Von Bismarck

Lammy 5y ago
> With the USA split Mexico could have grabbed Texas, or parts of it Some people imagined the other way around https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knights_of_the_Golden_Circle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knights_of_the_Golden_Circle
jsnell 5y ago
It does not look like Bismarck actually said that.

michael-ax 5y ago

An orbital perspective on 2..3..4..5000 years of human history in a 10 minute read. What's not to like?

jessaustin 5y ago

So the US doesn’t need to worry about its physical integrity or waste huge sums on a military race with its neighbors. It’s safe, and that’s more than most countries can say. USA spends more on military than next ten nations (most of whom are its "allies") put together. In the last year of Trump, the increase in spending was greater than the total of its "great rival" Russia. Pentagon claims to have no idea where the money goes, and is proud to be unauditable. There must be some details that this geographic technique misses...

sellyme 5y ago
The "with its neighbors" there is important. The waste described is that in spending a century warring with the country next doors opens you up to being rolled over by someone from another continent who spent that century developing in peace and prosperity. That's not really as relevant in the United States' modern geopolitical position where military spending is about exerting a global sphere of influence.
zokier 5y ago
US doesn't need to spend as much as it does on military to defend its physical integrity and sovereignty. US chooses to spend, which is altogether different matter.

Merrill 5y ago

Were it not for an explicitly European political event, the British colonies might have been walled off from the Mississippi Valley by the Appalachians, and separate countries might have occupied the territory. The Seven Years War (1756–1763) resulted in the British taking control of Canada and French possessions east of the Mississippi. The British colonies on the coast, many of which had no defined western boundary, then wished to extend westward. This was resisted by the British Crown, which asserted control from London over the new territories. The colonists then fought the War of Independence by which then won control of the Ohio Valley and south from Britain. This enabled the colonies to expand via upstate New York and across the mountain passes. The French Revolution and Napoleonic Wars further weakened France and Spain resulting in our acquisition of Florida and Louisiana on very favorable terms.