Guns, Germs, and Steel PBS miniseries discussion thread.

[Drake Tungsten]

Here's another map for you.

http://www.china.org.cn/english/en-shuzi2004/zr/gq20.htm

This one has the added bonus of showing a significant portion of Japan. I don't think anyone would deny that Japan is a mountainous country and was quite difficult to unify because of it. Looking at the map, you can see that the mountains in southern China are comparable to those in Japan. If you throw in Sichuan, which you left out of your cordoned off area above but which was very much a part of historical China, you'll find that southern China is more formidably mountainous than Japan is.

Basic point being that China is at least as topographically diverse as Europe, if not more so. Any claims that China is "relatively flat" and easily unified while Europe is not simply do not conform to the facts.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
Here's another map for you.

http://www.china.org.cn/english/en-shuzi2004/zr/gq20.htm

This one has the added bonus of showing a significant portion of Japan. I don't think anyone would deny that Japan is a mountainous country and was quite difficult to unify because of it. Looking at the map, you can see that the mountains in southern China are comparable to those in Japan. If you throw in Sichuan, which you left out of your cordoned off area above but which was very much a part of historical China, you'll find that southern China is more formidably mountainous than Japan is.

The issue is what kind of barrier will the mountains make. Just looking at that map, the funny thing is that the mountains in Southern China are not labelled as being part of any chain, and for the most part, from the coloring, they fall under 3000 feet in altitude. So you don;t have chains of 10,000 feet high peaks cutting southern China of from northern, like you do, say, Italy or Iberia from the rest of Europe.

Basic point being that China is at least as topographically diverse as Europe, if not more so. Any claims that China is "relatively flat" and easily unified while Europe is not simply do not conform to the facts.

Greater China, certainly. Historic China, not as much.

[Drake Tungsten]

they fall under 3000 feet in altitude

The map labels elevation in meters, sunshine...

the mountains in Southern China are not labelled as being part of any chain

The map labels the major chains in China. Southern China has plenty of mountains in the 1000-2000m range, but that is hardly worth mentioning when compared to the Himalayas and the other massive ranges in western China...

Greater China, certainly. Historic China, not as much.

Whatever you say...

[Sikander]

Originally posted by VetLegion
Have Chinese dialects diverged as much from each other as European languages have since fall of Rome? If not, it would be interesting to know why.

I don't know, but that is a question that involves a lot of difficult variables. For instance in larger groups language changes more rapidly, as it does in groups where the technology is advancing rapidly, groups which are receiving a lot of immigrants who speak other languages, groups which have economic contact over a wide region etc.

[lord of the mark]

"Linguists say the Wu dialect widely spoken in Shanghai, to take one prominent example, shares only about 31 percent lexical similarity with Mandarin, or roughly the same as English and French."

A silly comparison, no? As English has a huge lexical debt to French, as a result of the Norman influence. I think a comparison of say, German to French would show a far lower lexical similarity.

IIRC Diamond in GGS suggests that the Chinese"dialects" ARE closer to each other than the Euro languages are to each other.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Dis
got a chance to watch the first episode which was shown last night on our PBS station. There is nothing tonight, perhaps they only run one episode a week.

The episode was pretty good. though they didn't show any opposing views, they just said some of his ideas are controversial and not accepted by everyone.

ya well, 3 main examples.

1. Thesis that malayo-polynesian originated not on Taiwan, but on the mainland and then spread to Taiwan. IIUC no one beleives this but Diamond

2. Indo-European was spread by neolithic farmers spread northwest from asia minor. This WAS beleived by anthropoligist Colin Renfrew, but not by most linguists, who date proto-IE to much later than the neolithic expansion. IIUC Renfrew has modified his assertion. Diamond in GGS doesnt seem aware of that.

3. North American megafauna destroyed by clovis hunters, rather than climate change - very controversial, much opinion on both sides. IIUC the current mainstream view is that it was a combination - populations weakened by climate, were sent over the edge by hunting.

[GePap]

Originally posted by lord of the mark

A silly comparison, no? As English has a huge lexical debt to French, as a result of the Norman influence. I think a comparison of say, German to French would show a far lower lexical similarity.

And why wouldn't the different Chinese dialects influence each other?

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by GePap


And why wouldn't the different Chinese dialects influence each other?

My understanding is that the late lexical influence of French on English is unusually large for two IE languages, and i presume would be unusual (but certainly possible) for two chinese languages as well. I read the earlier question as being about how far the chinese languages have evolved away from each other over time, as compared with european languages, not necessarily what is the current lexical overlap.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten

they fall under 3000 feet in altitude

The map labels elevation in meters, sunshine...

And they are color coded as between 1000 and 2000 Meters. The highest peak in Fujian porvbince, the most mountanous province in southern China east of Yunnan is
Huanggang Peak, which is 2157 meters tall. That is the Highest peak in the area

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fujian

So, I am generally right about eletavion anyways, genius.



And you even say it afterwards....

The map labels the major chains in China. Southern China has plenty of mountains in the 1000-2000m range, but that is hardly worth mentioning when compared to the Himalayas and the other massive ranges in western China...

[Drake Tungsten]

1000m is 3,281 feet. 2000m is 6,562 feet. So, even at the low end of the scale, very few of the mountains in southern China fall under 3000 feet in elevation, as you mistakenly claimed.

You live in a funny world, GePap. Mountain ranges are "relatively flat" and being completely wrong somehow becomes being "generally right"...

[GePap]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
1000m is 3,281 feet. 2000 meters is 6,562 feet. So, even at the low end of the scale, very few of the mountains in southern China fall under 3000 feet in elevation, as you mistakenly claimed.

The tallest peaks in most of southern China are in the 1500 Meter range. Those are the peaks, ie, the tallest possible parts. Meaning the land around, you know, that land people live in and will ride around in, is 3000 feet or less.

Maybe you should go out and buy yourself a good, detailed Atlas and look at it....

You live in a funny world, GePap. Mountain ranges are "relatively flat" and being completely wrong somehow becomes being "generally right"...

Oh Potemkin, its funny when your point falls flat.

And if you forgot, the point is what kind of obstacle would those mountains pose.

[Drake Tungsten]

The tallest peaks in most of southern China are in the 1500 Meter range.

The map gives you average elevation! So, obviously, the average elevation in a huge section of southern China is more than 3000 feet. In most cases, it is far more than 3000 feet, up to over twice as high.

Good lord, why am I even explaining this?

[GePap]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten

The tallest peaks in most of southern China are in the 1500 Meter range.

The map gives you average elevation! So, obviously, the average elevation in a huge section of southern China is more than 3000 feet. In most cases, it is far more than 3000 feet, up to over twice as high.

Good lord, why am I even explaining this?

Unlike yourself, I actually have access to maps at home detailed enough to point to most villages under 10,000 people in Southern China.

Average elevations are just that, so if 60% of the lanbd is 2000 Feet or less and 40% of the land is 5000 feet or more, then the average would be 3200 feet. Or are you unaware of the meaning of average?

If I wanted to go from Nanjing in Jiangsu province to Nanchang in Jiangxi province, I never really have to go over land more than 500 meters high, just head south to Wuhu on the Yatntgze, then follow the river southwest to Jiujiang, then south along the shores of Poyanghu lake.

[Drake Tungsten]

Unlike yourself, I actually have access to maps at home detailed enough to point to most villages under 10,000 people in Southern China.

And unlike you, I can look out any window and see what a mountainous landscape at an average elevation of 1000-2000m looks like. Guess what? It isn't "relatively flat"...

Believe what you want to, though. You've been wrong plenty of times in the past, so I don't see why you should stop now.

[Mr. Harley]

Before you two pull out trebuchets and fire at 200 paces - maybe the issue is the number of rivers and mountain passes in China. The issue is not just the mountains - passes and communications through them are just as iumportant. I don't know, that is the kind of localized info natives know.

To give you an idea, the Appalachians are sigificantly lower than the Rockies, but due to the broken nature of the Appalachians and the extensive tree cover, having an aircraft emergency out of range of an airport is actually more dangerous in the Appalachians. In the same vein for this discussion - which mountains are more effective barriers to trade and armies?

The barrier aspect is the real issue. Huge mountain ranges with multiple passes that are not all defensible by the same country are actually a worse barrier than a lower range with crap access. If you want to look at how big a pain mountains can be, look at the Civil War campaigns in Eastern-Southeastern Tennesseee. Now, I haven't got my Atlas, nor am I a caravan trader or a general for a pre-gunpowder army. How do the mountain ranges stack up in that context?