5 ms·

Even if the layout of the land didn't give an advantage to Eurasia + Mediterranean Africa, the sheer size did. It had a lot more arable land, more space for nom

Even if the layout of the land didn't give an advantage to Eurasia + Mediterranean Africa, the sheer size did. It had a lot more arable land, more space for nomadic tribes (capable of fast travel and spread of culture and technology), more resources, more people. Brief study of geography and climate would make it obvious that areas like Mediterranean, Middle East, India and China will become centers of civilization. All these were connected by land and sea routes, that made it possible to exchange knowledge (and germs). Americas, Sub-Saharan Africa and Australia didn't stand a chance.

082349872349872 3y ago
The Americas and Australia lacked horses until their (re-)introduction by europeans, whie sub-saharan Africa resisted repeated attempts to introduce horses. We can guess the effect that might have on exchanges by considering: unmounted but encumbered people travel at about 25km/day; spanish missions in California were about 50km apart; Pony Express riders with relay remounts could cover 120km/day.
- wavefunction 3y ago
  You make it sound like sub-Saharan Africans were offered an unparalleled opportunity with horses and rejected them out of some sort of pique. A quick search indicates that endemic diseases in the region made the husbanding of horses completely impractical until they could be bred over centuries to be resistant to the diseases transmitted as easily as say... a bite from an insect. The Pony Express lasted all of 18 months and was apparently financially unsustainable.
  - votepaunchy 3y ago
    You make it sound like the Pony Express simply went bankrupt when the primary cause for its closure was the completion of the transcontinental telegraph.
- tomjakubowski 3y ago
  In 1491 people in mountainous South America had domesticated alpacas and llamas, which are better suited than horses for steep, alpine slopes. The horse was quickly abandoned by Spaniards in such terrain.
  - nradov 3y ago
    Sure, but it's impossible to build a wealthy society using alpacas as pack animals over mountains. A horse or ox pulling a cart over relatively flat terrain is far more efficient.
    - Veserv 3y ago
      The Incans were quite wealthy and advanced. As said by the official secretary of Pizarro [1]: “The city of Cuzco, being the primary place where the lords made their residence, is so great and so beautiful and with so many buildings that it would be worthy to be seen in Spain”. On a fortress of the city: “Many Spaniards who have seen it, and who went to Lombardy and other foreign kingdoms,” he adds, “say they have not seen another building like this fortress nor a stronger castle.” In any event, the advantages of stronger pack animals are only significant if you can create wheeled carts. The Incans, like most Mesoamerican civilizations, had limited access to metals and advanced metallurgy preventing them from widespread usage of wheels as a means of facilitating travel. Without wheels, the amount of distance most animals can go while carrying their supplies is fairly similar. If I recall correctly, it is something on the order of 150 km, regardless of horse, ox, or even human. If you have to carry your food and water you can only go around 150 km with what you can carry. That means proportional consumption rate is highly similar, so two animals that can carry 100 kg is not materially different than one animal that can carry 200 kg. Under that model you would probably actually prefer smaller pack animals to reduce concentrated risk of animal loss and improve maneuverability. You actually can do better since animals like horses can efficiently graze, but that heavily limits your transportation speed and weight maximums for commerce purposes and you still need to feed the humans. Incidentally this is why rivers are so important in early civilization. Barges on rivers bypass the fundamental distance limit even without wind. Floaty boat and a stick to push off the banks/riverbed dominates almost everything else for commerce. [1] https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/renaissance-quarterly/article/inca-architecture-from-the-andes-to-the-adriatic-pedro-sanchos-description-of-cuzco/19E051A819D3223B0925A762040A9E88 https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/renaissance-quarterl...
dan_mctree 3y ago
To my untrained eye, the eastern United States and Uruguay + surroundings also seem like great places for civilizations to thrive. But for some reason those areas did not seem to have particularly large civilizations before the colonization period. Does anyone know of a good reason why these areas were relatively unpopulated compared to the areas you mention but also compared to say Mexico?
- brabel 3y ago
  Do yourself a favour and just read the book we're talking about. It explains exactly these questions, and many more, even if the current trend is to criticize those explanations because "there could be other factors as well" (which Diamond does acknowledge, but perhaps not enough for everyone).

082349872349872 3y ago

The Americas and Australia lacked horses until their (re-)introduction by europeans, whie sub-saharan Africa resisted repeated attempts to introduce horses. We can guess the effect that might have on exchanges by considering: unmounted but encumbered people travel at about 25km/day; spanish missions in California were about 50km apart; Pony Express riders with relay remounts could cover 120km/day.

wavefunction 3y ago
You make it sound like sub-Saharan Africans were offered an unparalleled opportunity with horses and rejected them out of some sort of pique. A quick search indicates that endemic diseases in the region made the husbanding of horses completely impractical until they could be bred over centuries to be resistant to the diseases transmitted as easily as say... a bite from an insect. The Pony Express lasted all of 18 months and was apparently financially unsustainable.
- votepaunchy 3y ago
  You make it sound like the Pony Express simply went bankrupt when the primary cause for its closure was the completion of the transcontinental telegraph.
tomjakubowski 3y ago
In 1491 people in mountainous South America had domesticated alpacas and llamas, which are better suited than horses for steep, alpine slopes. The horse was quickly abandoned by Spaniards in such terrain.
- nradov 3y ago
  Sure, but it's impossible to build a wealthy society using alpacas as pack animals over mountains. A horse or ox pulling a cart over relatively flat terrain is far more efficient.
  - Veserv 3y ago
    The Incans were quite wealthy and advanced. As said by the official secretary of Pizarro [1]: “The city of Cuzco, being the primary place where the lords made their residence, is so great and so beautiful and with so many buildings that it would be worthy to be seen in Spain”. On a fortress of the city: “Many Spaniards who have seen it, and who went to Lombardy and other foreign kingdoms,” he adds, “say they have not seen another building like this fortress nor a stronger castle.” In any event, the advantages of stronger pack animals are only significant if you can create wheeled carts. The Incans, like most Mesoamerican civilizations, had limited access to metals and advanced metallurgy preventing them from widespread usage of wheels as a means of facilitating travel. Without wheels, the amount of distance most animals can go while carrying their supplies is fairly similar. If I recall correctly, it is something on the order of 150 km, regardless of horse, ox, or even human. If you have to carry your food and water you can only go around 150 km with what you can carry. That means proportional consumption rate is highly similar, so two animals that can carry 100 kg is not materially different than one animal that can carry 200 kg. Under that model you would probably actually prefer smaller pack animals to reduce concentrated risk of animal loss and improve maneuverability. You actually can do better since animals like horses can efficiently graze, but that heavily limits your transportation speed and weight maximums for commerce purposes and you still need to feed the humans. Incidentally this is why rivers are so important in early civilization. Barges on rivers bypass the fundamental distance limit even without wind. Floaty boat and a stick to push off the banks/riverbed dominates almost everything else for commerce. [1] https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/renaissance-quarterly/article/inca-architecture-from-the-andes-to-the-adriatic-pedro-sanchos-description-of-cuzco/19E051A819D3223B0925A762040A9E88 https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/renaissance-quarterl...

dan_mctree 3y ago

To my untrained eye, the eastern United States and Uruguay + surroundings also seem like great places for civilizations to thrive. But for some reason those areas did not seem to have particularly large civilizations before the colonization period. Does anyone know of a good reason why these areas were relatively unpopulated compared to the areas you mention but also compared to say Mexico?

brabel 3y ago
Do yourself a favour and just read the book we're talking about. It explains exactly these questions, and many more, even if the current trend is to criticize those explanations because "there could be other factors as well" (which Diamond does acknowledge, but perhaps not enough for everyone).