 |
| |
|
|
The Joker
|
|
Copenhagen, Denmark
Aug 1999
time: 06:14
|
|
Well, it tryes to give a materialistic explanation why the Eurasian (and especcially European) civs were the ones that dominated the world. Why didn't aboriginals settle the UK in stead of the other way around?
Doing that the author have combined many sciences. First he describes how Eurasia is the continent with much more domesticable animals (to be domesticable they have to pass on several conditions, like not being too dangerous like Rhinos, or not grow too slow like elephants etc) compared to all other continents. This is mainly due to its size - if animals are spread evenly over the land and then spread throughout each continent the largest one will have more animals than the others.
Second he does the same thing with crops. Eurasia has more crops than other continents, thus the people there could more easily develop complex societies.
Third he looks at diseases. He claims that diseases are mostly transfered from domesticated animals (and brings up a few exambles that I dont remember), and therefore the civs with most domesticated animals will have more diseases. They will then develop partial resistance to them, and will be able to spread them to unlucky people not earlier exposed to them. This is what happened in the early 16th century in America - they all died from smallpox, because, unlike the Europeans, they had no resistance to it.
These are the most important features in the book. There are some others, like why it was Europe and not China that colonized the world, but this is done less throughly, and is not as convincing as the rest of the book.
------------------
"Damn those nazicommunists."
- McBain
GGS Website
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
VetLegion
|
|
from another thread:
quote:
He found it in geography. Specifically, he found it in axes (plural of axis) of landmass shape; East-West "good", North-South, "bad". That is, in his view (and I agree with him until a better explanation comes along) the original (ultimate)explanation for civilization success.
|
Geography, I agree (with you both  ) is very big factor in any historical equasion. But, north-south vs. east-west alone wont work. If the population density and tech level in south africa was simmilar to that of china, there would probably be a "silk" route through africa to mediterranean, too.
quote:
The fourth level factor was technology. That arose from cities, which depended on plant and animal domestication. Those factors combined to allow food surpluses which, in turn, allowed for tech specialists.
Guns can only come from civs that have (by geographical fortune) had domesticatable plants and animals.
|
Tech level can progress only there, where concentracion of people is such that it allows them to pass knowledge to next generations. They sure need to eat to do that, but they can eat fish, and there is fish everywhere
quote:
I welcome rebutal (without taking it in any way personally).
|
I dont know what rebutal means, but if its reply, you got it
quote:
And I have some thoughts about how to make a game more faithful to GGS...
|
Speak freely!
|
|
| |
|
|
|
VetLegion
|
|
I remembered a book "Clash of Civilization" I read some time ago. Anyone read that? Author trys to explain that every conflict always appears on borders of great world religions. (he somewhat redefines religions though).
|
|
| |
|
|
|
The Joker
|
|
Copenhagen, Denmark
Aug 1999
time: 06:14
|
|
Vet:
Incas:
If that was true then Africans would rule the world. They have had millions of more years to develop their technology in than the rest of us.
Bisonpox:
Because bisons are not very domesticable (it hasn't even been domesticated in modern times), which means the indians had less contact with the bisons than europeans had with cattle. This meant the disease didn't spread from bisons to indians, and the indians didn't develop resistance.
Geography:
Yes, but why wasn't the population density of South Africa as high as in China? Because of lack of crops and animals, and because of fewer places to exchange technology with.
Technology:
Crops and animals provides more food, which means more people to develop technology.
Clash:
I've heard about it. It sounds interesting. It should propably become one of our team books, with Rise and Fall of the Great Powers by Kennedy and of cause GGS.
Cavebear:
Please tell us everything you want us to know! We'd like to hear it.
------------------
"The future is that mountain."
- Bret Easton Ellis
GGS Website
|
|
| |
|
|
|
VetLegion
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by The Joker on 12-17-2000 05:00 PM
Incas:
If that was true then Africans would rule the world. They have had millions of more years to develop their technology in than the rest of us.
|
No, they didnt have more tech - time. There is level (around the discovery of letters) when advance of tech becomes pretty determined and unstoppable process. Africa had not reached that level yet, hence its progress of knowledge depended much on tales and individual expirience, thus slow. (notice the use of hence and thus - nice )
But Incas or Aztecs were pretty close to the alphabet or had someting simmilar.
quote:
Bisonpox:
Because bisons are not very domesticable (it hasn't even been domesticated in modern times), which means the indians had less contact with the bisons than europeans had with cattle. This meant the disease didn't spread from bisons to indians, and the indians didn't develop resistance.
|
So there is Bisonpox???
And if indians didnt have resistance to it AND it was deadly they would certainly die from it considering how much bison meat they eat raw, etc.
quote:
Yes, but why wasn't the population density of South Africa as high as in China? Because of lack of crops and animals, and because of fewer places to exchange technology with.
|
yes, yes, yes
Only north-south has nothing to do with it.
edit: quotes
[This message has been edited by VetLegion (edited December 18, 2000).]
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Guildmaster
|
|
Up your butt and around the corner
Jun 2000
time: 05:14
|
|
It seems to me the point of us doing this project is to make a game about conquering the world. If we wanted to make a game based on a book, we should have started with the book instead of starting the game and later incorporating it.
It almost seems as if we are basing the entire game concepts on this book...
------------------
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
|
|
| |
|
|
|
cavebear
|
 |
of the Pleistocene
Oct 1999
time: 00:14
|
|
VetLegion -
Your responses to my questions are perfectly logical (and were mine before reading the book). But that is where Mr. Diamond advanced the understanding of the main question.
Incas -Yes, the Incas were behind in tech, but *why* were they behind? Diamond differentiates between "proximate* causes (like lack of tech) and "ultimate" causes (like *why* lack of tech). The Incas were isolated and had no outside source of new ideas. The Europeans were not isolated and benefitted from N Africa, SW Asia, and Chinese advancements. The Incas were behind because of geography. In another 500 years, the conquest would have just been more lop-sided.
Bisonpox - Well, Llamapox fits better for Incas I guess. The point is that the Incas did not have a good selection of animals to domesticate (geography again). Since Eurasia had many domesticatable animals, and the people were in constant contact with those animals, diseases from those animals sometimes adapted to humans. Humans sufferred greatly in the short run, but the survivors developed resistance to those diseases. When they encountered non-resistant people, the effect was to spread an epidemic. 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.
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. Since plants are bith temperature and rainfall dependent, they can spread very easily East/West, but not North/South (or across climate barriers). 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. Similarly, crop exchanges could not occur between N Africa and sub-Saharan Afica.
Trade is similarly affected. Trade occurs when surpluses are acheived and tech requires the specialists that are freed from food-gathering once agriculture takes hold. No domesticated plants means hunter-gatherer societies and little tech development, and hence, no real trading routes. Trade routes do not develop across hunter-gatherer societies.
Fish - That's a good point. In a very few areas, fish provided a basis for near-domesticated food sources. However, those were limited and seasonal. Fish has to be considered merely a very rich hunter-gatherer source of food.
Letters - The trade connections that could develop in Eurasia (because of the major East/West orientation, plants, and animals) allowed the sharing of writing advances among several independent cultures. They could advance more quickly because of outside ideas. That could not occur in the Americas. The few cultures there never developed the trade that allowed the importing of new writing concepts. Diamond explains in detail the various writing strategies that developed in each of the early Eurasian cultures and how some of those ideas spread and were taken advantage of. Indeed, he shows how people in non-letter cultures quickly grasped and used the new idea (over hieroglyphs and syllabic strategies) in the Americas. They were just as intelligent, but they hadn't happened to get the idea on their own due to geographical isolation.
So, it just keeps coming down to geography as the "ultimate" explanation of why civilizations advanced at different rates.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
cavebear
|
|
of the Pleistocene
Oct 1999
time: 00:14
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Guildmaster on 12-19-2000 01:18 PM
It seems to me the point of us doing this project is to make a game about conquering the world. If we wanted to make a game based on a book, we should have started with the book instead of starting the game and later incorporating it.
It almost seems as if we are basing the entire game concepts on this book...
|
I think that both can be done. Do you want just another world-conquering game, or something that is both playable and reasonably unique?
It was the GGS title that attracted my attention, not just another wargame. I think some of you are worried that basing a game on the real GGS ideas would either render it unplayable or force an outcome for one civ. I think there are ways around that. It may require a break in thinking from regular games, but it doesn't have to turn into some new Sim-game, either.
But seriously, if you don't want to model the game after GGS, why name it after the book? There are plenty of good names to be used without suggesting it is something that it is not...
I mean only to help, if you want something that is GGS-oriented. If not, I think you folks will make a great game, just not a GGS game, and there is nothing wrong with that either!
I think that a true GGS orientation only controls the methods and strategies for expansion, not the competitiveness or challenge of it.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
amjayee
|
 |
Jyväskylä, Finland
Oct 1999
time: 07:14
|
|
Mayas were the only American people with alphabet and writing.
I agree with GGS for reasons why Europeans became technologically more advanced. Here is a brief summary of events that led to Europeans conquering the world as I have understood it based on GGS and other books.
Southwestern Asia had the largest amount of domesticable animals and plants in the world, and it also was blessed with those best suitable for that, and the ones most used even today. (By domesticable animals and plants I refer to the definitions by Mr Diamond, but won't make a summary of those to save space.) Those plants and animals spread quickly to Europe and other parts of Asia, but not so quickly to Africa mostly because of the infamous North-South Axis. The main explanation for why it works is, that when traveling north-south, one has to cross different kinds of climate areas. The plants and animals had difficulties to adapt to strange conditions, whereas traveling east-west, the conditions were much the same.
With abundance of food, the civilizations of Southwestern Asia were able to develop quickly, because smaller and smaller portion of people was needed to grow food. That area eventually gave birth to Egypt, Babylonia, Greece and many other civilizations that spread the knowledge and technology to a wide area. eventually Rome was to take hold of most of Europe and Mediterranean, unifying the culture of the region. When Rome fell, many small, ambitious and evenly powerful nations rose from ashes. They were for a long time far behind Byzantine empire and Arabs, but eventually the endless competition and wars between the European nations lead them to develop powerful trading and warfare technology that helped them to gain control of most of Earth.
So, GGS is correct in describing what things were important in the success of Eurasians, but it doesn't explain everything. Also the axis idea works, but mainly for plants and animals. Diseases were important, and Joker described the idea correctly; Europeans had many diseases, some because of the domestications of animals, and some because they were living in densely populated communities. But those helped only with under-developed peoples of Africa and America. The civilizations of Middle East were holding back the Europeans. Eventually the competition between the small European nations was the final reason why Europeans gained control of the whole planet.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
cavebear
|
|
of the Pleistocene
Oct 1999
time: 00:14
|
|
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).]
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Guildmaster
|
|
Up your butt and around the corner
Jun 2000
time: 05:14
|
|
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
|
|
Copenhagen, Denmark
Aug 1999
time: 06:14
|
|
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
|
|
| |
|
|
|
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
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:14.
Apolyton Time is 00:14. |
top of page
|
|
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
16-12-2000 02:18
|