Hacker News Reader

Comment by ajross | Hacker News Reader

Point #2 is exactly the opposite of Diamond's hypothesis. The contention is that the broad east/west alignment of all the major population centers in Eurasia meant that trade of ideas and technologies was easier than the north/south travel required to reach other cultures.

The point here being that going across latitudes is harder because you're moving through many climates and water bodies with different equipment and technology requirements to pass through them. A single caravan might get to Persia using the same pack animals and equipment with which it left Tibet, but that's not possible if you're trying to get to Kenya or Australia.

View on HN

It's been a long time since I read the book, but I do think he made the point that part of what gave Europe a military edge was the fact of lots of natural geographical borders like rivers and mountains, giving rise to lots of small kingdoms instead of one big one. So there were constant conflicts, driving innovation.

And the thing about latitudes I think applies more to mobility of things like crops than to human travel, since you need to cross climate zones.

I’m curious how that’s different from the Native Americans who, regardless of their Nobel savage portrayal in media, were constantly at war with each other yet failed to develop any weapons nearly powerful enough to repel the Europeans.

As I remember it, a major thesis of the book (which I recommend, it's a fun read!) is that Europeans had the benefit of several, mainly geographical factors. This was just one of them.

> trade of ideas and technologies was easier than the north/south travel required to reach other cultures

It was mostly about the exchange of domesticated animals and crop plants. You can start using crop plants you got from your neighbors, if the plants stay in the same climate zone, so east-west movement.

That was a stronger variant of the same hypothesis. And indeed it explains the nearly uniform agriculture/husbandry recipes in Eurasia. But it doesn't explain why at the dawn of the renaissance all these cultures were producing similar crucible steel (from India) or making gunpowder (China).

Obviously the book goes farther still, I wasn't trying to summarize the whole thing. The "germs" angle matters too, the pervasive Eurasian trade networks meant that acquired immunity could be traded like technology, leading to a Eurasian "fortress of disease" that prevented immigration but did nothing to deter colonialism.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com