GGS - The Book

[amjayee]

We have agreed that this will not be a war-game. Warfare will be an important part of it, but not the main thing. The name GGS should be well-deserved, since I think we will be using its main ideology to model the workings of the development of a planetary human civilization.

I don't see any problem in that the system puts some areas of a globe in a favored position. That's only realistic; and in Civ2 the different locations were not equal either, I think we have all experienced that. The trick is, that the worse the starting conditions, the harder the game; but the hardness is of course relative. It would have been quite hard to survive in the middle of Europe also.

Also since the victory of a game will not be as straightforward as earlier, the starting conditions don't matter as much. It will be near to impossible to conquer the world, so victory will come from the overall success and achievements; in the long run, players who start in bad places have the same possibilities for success as everyone else. The main idea is to make the best use of the possibilities you have got...

[cavebear]

quote: Originally posted by VetLegion on 12-19-2000 04:30 PM I think sleeping with animals wasnt rare either, and it might have helped to disease transfer. We're loosing focus, I want to say what I dont like more clearly. I dont see how "North-South = bad, East-West = good" claim can be true. What does that statement try to say? I can agree with those other things. edit: still getting used to quote properly [This message has been edited by VetLegion (edited December 19, 2000).]

That is a fair question! As concisely as I can put it, East/West allows rapid spread of domesticated plants and animals, while North/South does not. Everything follows from that idea.

Think of all cultures at one point in time being hunter-gatherers. In some very few locations, there are suitable plants and animals that can be domesticated (and there are few that are suitable). In those few places, humans (being otherwise everywhere equally intelligent) have the *opportunity* to domesticate. In *those* places, some cultures are on their own (isolated), and some are not. Those cultures that are not isolated have terrain nearby that will support the plants and animals that they domesticate, so they spread. Where they meet another such spreading culture (remember, being limited by geography to areas that support their plants and animals), they discover new domesticated plants and animals from another culture. Both sides gain new crops and animals. They start to trade.

Meanwhile, there is an isolated culture. They have only their own plants and animals (assuming they have any - and not all do). They can't spread and find other similar cultures to exchange plants and animals with.

The meeting cultures gain momentum; the isolated ones do not. It is not that the latter culture fails, it just doesn't advance as fast. It is the difference between you learning a game on your own vs learning from talking to other players as well!

Spreading occurs in areas of similar climate. And climate is much more consistent East/West than North/South. Wheat developed in China can grow all through temperate (non-tropical and non-Siberian) Asia and into France (8,000 miles?). But it can't grow a mere few hundred miles North or South (without modern technology).

That's why major axis orientation is so important.

About animals. Close proximity allows microbes an opportunity to experience a different animal than their accustomed one (and humans are animals too, of course). The transfer methods are numerous. A dog licks your face, you carry a sheep to a corral, you handle a bit from a horse's mouth, you stand in contaminated straw from a cow-barn, etc. Each time, the microbe has a remote chance of being able to adapt to your body. If successful, it may be able to replicate itself in you, and that *may* create a disease. So, the more domesticated animals, and the closer the contact, and the more likely that a new human disease develops.
When I mentioned Bisonpox or Llamapox, it was with the understanding that *if* humans had thoroughly domesticated either, there would have been such a disease developed eventually. That way, had there been "llamapox", the invading Spanish soldiers would have very likely died out quickly because they would have had no resistence to it whereas the Incas would have been long-resistant to the disease (as the Spanish were to Measles, Chickenpox, smallpox, etc). And the Eurasian conquest of the Americas been long-delayed.

And all this still comes down to East/West vs North/South "ultimate" causes.

[VetLegion]

check the time on last few posts, it seems we posted roughly same time, so I missed some posts.

quote: Originally posted by cavebear on 12-19-2000 04:17 PM Incas -Yes, the Incas were behind in tech, but *why* were they behind? The Incas were behind because of geography. In another 500 years, the conquest would have just been more lop-sided.

hmm, I wont contest this opinion, partially because geography is a big term.

quote: The Incas did not have the "opportunity" to develop such diseases they could become resistant to and expose enemies to because they didn't have domestic animals in the first place.

I dont really know anything about diseases so I will shut up on that.

quote: East/West vs North/South - This is important for domesticated plants. A plant domesticated in one area can only be spread through trade if it grows well in the new location.

This is absolutely true.

quote: Since plants are bith temperature and rainfall dependent, they can spread very easily East/West, but not North/South (or across climate barriers).

Why can they not move across climate barriers? If the destination is suitable for example?

quote: Wheat, millet, fruits, etc could move from China to France (and vice versa) without difficulty in Eurasia. But corn and potatoes could not move between Aztecs and Incas because there was unsuitable growing areas in Central America in the way.

There is huge area unsuitable for growth of anything at all on the path of China-France trade route. Question of crops migration more complex then "east-west" solution. I think.

quote: Trade routes do not develop across hunter-gatherer societies.

True. Trade routes develop between different markets, and for a market there is serious concentraction of buying power (people) needed.

quote: Letters - The trade connections that could develop in Eurasia (because of the major East/West orientation, plants, and animals)

Trade occured amongst people. People were there because of food. But food wasnt there because of east-west

quote: The few cultures there never developed the trade that allowed the importing of new writing concepts. ... They were just as intelligent, but they hadn't happened to get the idea on their own due to geographical isolation.

I dont think trade is essential for development of writing concepts, so their "import" is not needed. Every civ that had a centralised government evolved a system of writing (hierogliphes etc.)
It happenes fonetic system (alphabet) was invented by Phoenicians who where traders, but there is no proof that links those two things.

Egyptians might have evolved alphabet alone, from their hieroglyphes in no-time (historicaly speaking).

quote: So, it just keeps coming down to geography as the "ultimate" explanation of why civilizations advanced at different rates.

Dont get me wrong, but I ll stay conservative on this I think geography (what a wide term too) is as I said a big factor in any history equasion. But in history equasions are very complex - very non deterministic (Yes, I read "The Chaos Theory").

But still we have to think, and we have to speculate. I read some history books - those books are boring. Serious historians always start their sentences with "maybe", "if we assume", "from what we know" etc. The books with wild theories are much better.

I always try to translate history claims to algorithms - If the algorithm can be applied to different starting settings it is good, if not - it is bad. My continental trade algorithm would be different. Lets see:

IF there are TWO Population centres AND,
IF the population is not nomadic AND,
IF the centres are big enough to be markets, AND
IF the distance between them is big enough, AND
IF it can be crossed with tech level available

THEN

Create a trade route between them. Trade whatever is bought. Ideas get traded in the process too.

Can we put East-West idea to such algorithm? If yes, then in a world with different landmasses (say we have two americas, no euroasia) there would not be crop migration? no trade? I think not.

I think people are the reason of trade, and where is people there is trade, no matter the distances, no matter the climate between ( or shape of continents ), no matter the trouble.
[This message has been edited by VetLegion (edited December 19, 2000).]

[VetLegion]

Oh, again!
If you answered in previous post, you dont have to repeat it. I havent seen it. I am too tired now, but I ll reply you when I read it tommorow...

VetLegion,
chairman of
The deniers the East-West theory Club

[cavebear]

VetLegion - I'll give you a chance to read all the posts before replying further.

[Guildmaster]

I also want to add my name to the list of disagreers of the east-west thingy. Trade defficiencies between two regions say Peru and Mexico first of all were non-existent. There is ample evidence to suggest that not only did trade between such places occur, but also evidence that diffusion of ideas also occured. They also speculate on how trade occured. One of the conquistadors I think it was Cortez but don't quote me on that was actually greeted by Mayan traders in the Gulf long before he even found land.

Mayan mathematical concepts were at the time of meeting in the 1500s were by far superior than the contemporary European concepts. Sorry to tell you guys, but it's true, you were far behind us americans back then just as you are now! hehehe
but seriously, with the mayan base-20 system you could have negative numbers, zero, and a couple other concepts unheard of by Eurasians. Mayan calendrics was and IS STILL more accurate than the gregorian calendar we are using today.
Note that it wasn't even a hundred years before horses ran wild and were domesticated by the North American plains indians, becoming an intriquite part of their culture so much that we sometimes forget that horses aren't indigenous to the Americas.
Now I want you to imagine something...
Suppose there were such thing as Llamapox and the Incas developped a resistance from it. Wouldn't it be possible then to suppose that it would have killed off enough of the first europeans to visit that they would have diffused their ideas into the americas AND allow them extra time not only to implement thos eideas, but to grow resistance to the european diseases? What if during Colombus' first trip to the New World they contracted Llamapox and they all died on the way back? If they never returned to Europe how different would things have been... imagine the americas benefitting from horses, wheat, cows, all sorts of european imports without the europeans gaining anything let alone the knowledge anything was even over here? It would have been decades before anyone thought of sending out another expidition, by then an entire generation of Native Americans would have died from smallpox, developped a resistance to it and begun repopulating.

------------------
He's spreading funk throughout the nations
And for you he will play
Electronic Super-Soul vibrations
He's come to save the day
- Lenny Kravitz

[VetLegion]

cavebear - thanks.
Guildmaster - wellcome to the Club. Our first action will be to destroy all compases, for they discriminate some sides of the world!

quote: Originally posted by cavebear on 12-19-2000 05:12 PM As concisely as I can put it, East/West allows rapid spread of domesticated plants and animals, while North/South does not. Everything follows from that idea.

Yes, it brings to that - and I can not agree with it

Your example is somewhat wrong - as I said, travel route from France to China passes through some areas unsuitable for growth of anything, let alone water intensive crops.

In any case, it is not an easy route. Perhaps the one which would go from north, through central america, to south is more difficult, but only if you assume rainforests are more difficult to travel then deserts and barren rock terrain of himalayas and central asia (which is probably true).

Now the comparison between The Big East-West Route and the Possible American Route is not really fair - the traveleres in the former had a choice of paths. If the Americas formed with a wider strip of land in central america, perhaps even some rocky terrain - it would have been more travelable.

If it had been more travelable, the only remaining factors for forming of trade would then be those I said in my previous post - is there any people and production to trade with.

And if there was movement of people, I believe the climate axis would not prove to be enough to stop the migration of crops.

The phrase "East-West = good, North-South = bad", or even "climate axis good, non-axis=bad" should be rephrased because it may only be partially correct (for a specific time period before human involvement)

The climate axis is more important when the crops and animals are spreading via they own ways - the wind, their legs etc. When humans come into picture (with trade) climate axis looses importance.

If destinations for crops are suitable, it will migrate sucessifuly, because this time they are carried in bags of some cunny merchant and not by mother nature itself.

[The Joker]

Lol guys!

Guildmaster:

We are not basing our entire game on this book. We are making a game about human history, and making it a strategy game as well. It is just that this book, unlike most history books, turns history into theories. General things are found from specific events. And this is something we can use. The book also does so well in describing human history, that neglegting it would be stupid.

North-south vs east-west:
I have said it before and I will say it again: I don't think we should worry too much about this issue. All we should do it make it a bit harder and slower for technology (in ancient history) to spread through different terrains than through a generic terrain. I don't think anyone could disagree about that. I personally support the axis theory, but I can see the reasons why it is not perfect. Yes, there is a much wider space to spread technology through in Eurasia than over the narrow Panaman strip of land. So obviously this as well has something to do with the lack of trade in the Americas. On the other hand Africa is pretty wide, and yet there was little trade and tech spread from and to South Africa, even though it had climate similar to the Mediterranean region. And I don't think the terrain you have to travel through to get from China to Europe is as dificult and different from your "home" terrain than when travelling from the Andes to Mesoamerica. Eurasia can be crossed by going through plains and dry areas. But the deserts can be avoided, and so can the mountains. On the other hand it is very, very hard to travel all the way up through southern Mesoamerica. It is moutains and jungle all the way. Not only does this make it impossible to plant your potatoes on your way to the Mayans, it is also likely that it will not be in the best shape when you reach your destination. Yes, I know that there was some trade between the metropoles of the Americas, but this was limited and not anywhere near as important as the trade between China and Europe. This is why the Aztechs never had Lamas, and why they had wheels, but saw no use of it apart from as a toy.

But like I said, we shouldn't worry too much about this. I think technology in early times should spread automatically to nearby hexes, and beyond. But only as long as these hexes had climate somewhat similar to your own climate. Otherwise the spread would be delayed. Not that it would not come, it would just take much more time than otherwise.

And to follow Guildmasters thought experiment, I think that would be excactly the point! If they had deathly diseases the whole clash of continents would have looked a lot different than it did. It would have been more like Europe's encounter with the civs in China and Japan, when the massive clash eventually came.

------------------
"The future is that mountain."
- Bret Easton Ellis

GGS Website

[amjayee]

Nothing is as refreshing as a good argument! About the axis system, the idea wasn't that the plants and animals can't move north-south at all, they just would move a lot slower. Generally I agree with GGS, but it's hard to explain the ideas in short... read the book, and get convinced! Though I agree with Joker that we don't need to be extremely concerned with the things presented in it, most are quite easy and self-evident.

[cavebear]

Guildmaster - Your example of the consequences of "llamapox" is precisely what I was going to get at next. Thank you for putting it so well. Saved me a lot of typing! And Eurasia *might* have been set back in its advance by an epidemic of llamapox from the Americas (as the Incans and others were from smallpox), if a few Spanish had returned home defeated.

About the Mayan math: I agree completely. That is a perfect example of talented (but isolated) people developing advanced ideas on their own. But it also demonstrates the danger of isolation. They could trade their math ideas with other cultures and gain new ideas in return. The Mayans, Incas, and Aztecs all had some good inventions, but they did not know about each other to exchange them.

[cavebear]

VetLegion - One thing I should mention about your statement that the China-France route is not all good for crops: Terrain now is not the same as terrain then. Much of Southwest Asia was good for crops 10k years ago! But time and human activity has had an effect; climate shifts and over-use of resources changed the land in SW Asia (Middle East) to what we see there today. The route from China to France *used* to be viable for agriculture and animal husbandry on the path from China to SE Asia to India to SW Asia to Europe.

I also should have specified that Diamond includes N Africa as part of Eurasia (for common terrain purposes). Southern Africa is/was isolated due to a desert, the jungle, a change between Winter vs Summer rains, and tse-tse flies (which prevented domesticated animals from getting from N Africa to S Africa).

You said "Now the comparison between The Big East-West Route and the Possible American Route is not really fair - the traveleres in the former had a choice of paths. If the Americas formed with a wider strip of land in central america, perhaps even some rocky terrain - it would have been more travelable."

I agree, but that is exactly the point! The North/South barriers in the Americas *did* exist, and that is the kind of thing that prevented the Incas, Mayans, Aztecs, Eastern US and Western US cultures from learning (gaining) from each other as the Eurasian cultures did.

[cavebear]

Amjayee - I'm not ignoring your posts, but there just isn't anything I can add to them or disagree with!

[cavebear]

Joker - I agree that the game need not slavishly follow the book, but I am heartened to see that more attention is being given to the basic ideas than I recently thought.

I have some ideas about *conceptual* ways of accounting for diffusion of domesticated plants and animals (as I said, I am no programmer), but I am not sure where to post them. I can describe some that would be solvable by programming (I think), and I can diagram others, but the threads for programming models don't seem to be the proper place. I hesitate to start a new thread, lest it complicate things. Suggestions?

[The Joker]

Not much to add to this discussion.

If you have some ideas about crops and animals you could just make a thread about it. Or, I think there might be an old thread somewhere about it. Maybe you could dig that up! But whatever you do, tell us the ideas!

------------------
"The future is that mountain."
- Bret Easton Ellis

GGS Website

[VetLegion]

quote: Originally posted by cavebear on 12-21-2000 07:18 PM VetLegion - One thing I should mention about your statement that the China-France route is not all good for crops: Terrain now is not the same as terrain then. Much of Southwest Asia was good for crops 10k years ago!

10k years ago? how about 5? But I dont think anything grew in the gobi desert anytime.

Anyway, you say that a crop did not hop from China to France, but instead spread gradually?

Perhaps, but when people were involved (trade) it could have hopped (as they did in 15/16 century). Chinese did not want to trade silk beetle (or how is it called), which shows they were aware of importance of their resources. No reason not to trade rice for example, since they cannot really carry lots of it all that way (it was never considered a spice, was it?).

quote: I agree, but that is exactly the point! The North/South barriers in the Americas *did* exist, and that is the kind of thing that prevented the Incas, Mayans, Aztecs, Eastern US and Western US cultures from learning (gaining) from each other as the Eurasian cultures did.

It just happened that americas were badly connected. If thay havent, North-South would have no influence there.

I think we can agree that:

A) climate axis is extremely important for plant/animal spread when it goes its natural way

B) it becomes irrelevant when people begin to migrate/trade.

I was thinking about trade, not nature, the whole time, that started the discussion.

And people will trade if there is someone to trade with.

IF there had been significant population density in North America, they would trade with central as well as central did with south. Nothing can stop the people