Guns, Germs, and Steel PBS miniseries discussion thread.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Ramo
Why are y'all arguing with this DL?

I'm studiously avoiding it.

[OzzyKP]

I just caught an episode last night. I wasn't impressed. The book is like the gospel for so many, and so many recommend it. But either it was a piss-poor rendition on TV, or it was only one small section of it, but I was unimpressed.

It focused mostly on the Spanish conquest of the Incas, and tried to explain why Europeans were more advanced and able to do that than vice versa. All they did though was explain why people in Eurasia were more advanced, not Europe specifically. Guns, germs, farm animals, steel, etc, all were jointly possessed by people in China, the middle east, India, as well. Why weren't they as successful/dominant as Europe? The episode didn't cover that.

Then it made the really stupid (I feel) argument about spread of culture and technology. It was talking about the lack of writing among the Inca, and how that was an advantage for the Spanish. Then the show recognized that the Maya developed writing centuries earlier. Why hadn't it spread to the Inca? Because the Americas are long north/south and Eurasia is long east/west. Umm huh?

According to the program, people and technology travel easier east to west because being in the same basic latitude its all the same climate, and thus crops and people are better able to travel. Same climate my ass. Deserts in the middle east, temperate forests in Europe, jungle in India. Mountains, swamp, plains, etc etc. Its not the same at all. There is as much diversity going from spain to china as from canada to argentina. That's a BS argument.

The farm animal explination for why Europe was better at agriculture, and more accustomed to disease makes sense. But then why not a more dominant China or India or other Eurasian culture?

The theory seems lacking to me.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by OzzyKP
I just caught an episode last night. I wasn't impressed. The book is like the gospel for so many, and so many recommend it. But either it was a piss-poor rendition on TV, or it was only one small section of it, but I was unimpressed.

It focused mostly on the Spanish conquest of the Incas, and tried to explain why Europeans were more advanced and able to do that than vice versa. All they did though was explain why people in Eurasia were more advanced, not Europe specifically. Guns, germs, farm animals, steel, etc, all were jointly possessed by people in China, the middle east, India, as well. Why weren't they as successful/dominant as Europe? The episode didn't cover that.

Then it made the really stupid (I feel) argument about spread of culture and technology. It was talking about the lack of writing among the Inca, and how that was an advantage for the Spanish. Then the show recognized that the Maya developed writing centuries earlier. Why hadn't it spread to the Inca? Because the Americas are long north/south and Eurasia is long east/west. Umm huh?

According to the program, people and technology travel easier east to west because being in the same basic latitude its all the same climate, and thus crops and people are better able to travel. Same climate my ass. Deserts in the middle east, temperate forests in Europe, jungle in India. Mountains, swamp, plains, etc etc. Its not the same at all. There is as much diversity going from spain to china as from canada to argentina. That's a BS argument.

The farm animal explination for why Europe was better at agriculture, and more accustomed to disease makes sense. But then why not a more dominant China or India or other Eurasian culture?

The theory seems lacking to me.

1. brief answer on why not china- Diamond thinks there are (other geographic reasons) why Europe triumphed, not say China. Some here (GePap) swear by them. Some deny them. Im in between, i think theres something to them, but think there may be other factors as well. read the above to see the arguments. In ANY case, WHICH eurasian civ triumphed is NOT the main point of the book, but rather WHY eurasian civs in general triumphed over everyone else.

2. east west spread - the key point is the spread of certain key grains, esp wheat and barley. They spread relatively easily from the fertile crescent, to southeast europe, to west europe, and also from fertile crescent to northwest India, with little modification. (you need to get clearer about local climates - wheat and barley emerged in the relatively well watered hill country on the edge of the fertile crescent, and thrive in mesopotamia itself with irrigation - and large parts of India are NOT jungle) Contrast with corn, which took much longer to spread north from Mexico to eastern US, for reasons of growing season length. This is explained in some detail in the book.

3. writing from mayas to Incas. In between is the Isthmus of Panama, a narrow band of mountainous jungle. neither civ being mariners, and there being little overland traffic, there was little exchange between the two americas. (for a what if, in which a more maritime group of indians in the carib establishes such contacts, go to Soc.history.what-if and search for "bronze age new world" or BANW, as its affectionately known.

[OzzyKP]

That raises another interesting question. Why did the American civilizations never take to the sea? While perhaps not as closed and calm a sea as the Mediterranian, the Carribean, and its many assorted bays and gulfs, seems at least somewhat friendly to ships. Obviously they had some, or people wouldn't have spread to the islands. But why not more?

[Ramo]

The theory is about Eurasia (and North Africa), not Europe specifically. There's a chapter at the end that addresses the differences that have cropped up in the past several hundred years, but it's not central to the book.

As for the latitude/longitude, most of the ME is to the South of Spain, and most of India is to the South of the ME. And India and China themselves have huge North-South axes. So of course you're going to have varying climates. Climates are generally latitude-dependent, and crops are generally climate dependent.



Note that climates East to West vary much less than North to South.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by OzzyKP
That raises another interesting question. Why did the American civilizations never take to the sea? While perhaps not as closed and calm a sea as the Mediterranian, the Carribean, and its many assorted bays and gulfs, seems at least somewhat friendly to ships. Obviously they had some, or people wouldn't have spread to the islands. But why not more?

Question: when did relatively advanced ship development in the med start? Relative to other civ advances? I think the answer is that the eastern shore of the med, and Egypt, are pretty far into the agriculture age, and even the bronze age, before they become seriously nautical. Americas were only barely reaching bronze age by 1492, and that was in Peru, not in the relatively backward Carib. OTOH there are probably contingencies that could change that. But while perhaps not determined, its hardly surprising.

Heres an outline of BANW


"The POD for the BANW is sometime before 500 AD, when the Arawak Indians of the Caribbean develop a better navigational package. It's not as good as OTL's Polynesians, but it's enough for serious long-distance sailing. The *Arawaks don't reach Europe, but they do
sail up and down the Atlantic coast of the New World from Delaware to Brazil, raiding, trading, and cross-fertilizing ideas.


The result is a somewhat faster advance of technology in the New World. Bronzeworking is developed in Mesoamerica around 900 AD and spreads slowly but steadily outwards; more advanced navigation techniques jump the Isthmus of Panama soon thereafter, with sails and outriggers reaching the California Chumash around 1400 and the Indians
of the Northwest in the 17th century.


Columbus and the other Europeans arrive on schedule, but they find a New World that is rather different from the one of our timeline. The Caribbean is postapocalyptic rather than Arcadian -- still recovering
from the collapse of the *Arawak civilization, the major islands dotted with the ruins of stone cities. Mesoamerica is occupied by a Bronze Age empire that only vaguely resembles our Aztecs. There are
large cities in the Mississippi valley and around Chesapeake Bay; there are some rather Homeric barbarians in the upper Midwest.


The Indians of the American Southwest are similar to OTL but more populous and more advanced. There is an agricultural civilization in the lower Amazon and another, smaller one in Florida.


Greater urbanization gives the Indians a couple of diseases to swap with the invading Europeans: a pneumonic variant of Rocky Mountain
Spotted Fever, and the tloggotl virus, a relative of Machupo fever and more distantly of Ebola. After about 1520, the virus plus different patterns of conquest and trade will cause European history to slowly
but steadily diverge from OTL's. "

[JohnT]

Then it made the really stupid (I feel) argument about spread of culture and technology. It was talking about the lack of writing among the Inca, and how that was an advantage for the Spanish. Then the show recognized that the Maya developed writing centuries earlier. Why hadn't it spread to the Inca? Because the Americas are long north/south and Eurasia is long east/west. Umm huh?

The possibility that the Incans wouldn't want anything to do with Mayan culture just because it was Mayan was unexplored and unmentioned.

[Ramo]

Incidentally, I'd like to recommend a much more rigorous (though looking at a different aspect - disease, rather than geography) macrohistory book Plagues and Peoples by William McNeill.

[OzzyKP]

Interesting LotM & Ramo.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by JohnT

Then it made the really stupid (I feel) argument about spread of culture and technology. It was talking about the lack of writing among the Inca, and how that was an advantage for the Spanish. Then the show recognized that the Maya developed writing centuries earlier. Why hadn't it spread to the Inca? Because the Americas are long north/south and Eurasia is long east/west. Umm huh?

The possibility that the Incans wouldn't want anything to do with Mayan culture just because it was Mayan was unexplored and unmentioned.

do we have any evidence that they were even aware of the Mayans?

[Epublius Rex]

Originally posted by Spiffor

Indeed, in the archaic times, the Ottomans hadn't yet invented the military use of guns, and the semitic people of the fertile crescent hadn't yet mastered iron working. I suppose the caucasians were conquered by stone age vs stone age weaponry.

It's really hilarious that you claim that a conqueror culture is "superior" when it fits Europeans, but as soon as you mention the utter defeat of caucasians, you immediately dismiss the "achievement" of the victors

The Ghengis Khan was not Caucasian.

Superior in a warring conquering sense- your ability comprehend isn't too good, is it? I made it clear that Rome was wealthier and more advanced then the Huns, Goths, et al. The point being that relative wealth was not part of the equation.

You did not respond to that, did you? No, of course not, it is just one more proof of what's wrong with GGS.

[Epublius Rex]

Originally posted by Ramo




Golden Horde

Whatever, answer the question. It is a direct rebuttal of geography/economics versus culture.

[Epublius Rex]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


do we have any evidence that they were even aware of the Mayans?

Yes, there is evidence of trade, just as there was evidence of trade with (forget tribe) that the Aztecs eventually supplanted between them and the Aztecs.

[Epublius Rex]

Originally posted by Spiffor



Potemkin, the 18th century Czarist field marshall
Potemkin, the battleship, where the crewmen revolted, thus entering communist lore

And?

[Epublius Rex]

Originally posted by Sikander


I'm studiously avoiding it.

Because you (and the rest) cannot refute the points- all of which stress culture over geography, etc.

Too bad.