You bring up several points. I don’t think the livestock transmission theory of disease creation is very important. I think what matters is that Eurasia had large, interconnected cities than America, Subsaharan Africa and Australia. That alone is enough to explain the evolution of pandemic diseases.
If we interpret the title literally as describing just “guns”, “germs” [from livestock] and “steel [swords and armor]” then yes, there was more to the conquest of the Mesoamerican civilizations than (literally) steel, guns and horses. European steel production wasn’t that great. Early guns sucked. Horses were quickly adopted by Native Americans. I don’t doubt that those technologies helped, but I think disease, long-range ships and deep symbiotic connections to the more sophisticated Eurasian transcontinental civilization were the most important factors.
The point about “Native Americans…unable react to new weapons/military tactics” seems like a strawman to me. The Plains Indians (just to name one example) were extraordinary combatants famous for their efficient use of rifles. To defeat them, the United States had to terraform the entire Great Plains, and that was a hundred years into the Industrial Revolution. Incidentally, I did read 1491. It’s on my list of the top 13 history books I recommend.
I think the quotes you link mostly attack Jared Diamond’s case, not mine. For example the idea that ““advanced” things are really just “more European.”” feels at odds with my opening sentences “For most of history, China was the center of civilization. It had the biggest cities, the most complex government, the highest quality manufacturing, the most industrial capacity, the most advanced technology, the best historical records and the largest armies. It dominated East Asia at the center of an elaborate tribute system for a thousand years.”
A common theme in the arguments you quote is that Europeans defeated the Mesoamerican civilizations because the Mesoamerican civilizations were divided. I think this fits in neatly with how long-range ships gave European powers the ability to pick advantageous terms (and times) of engagement.
To clarify, I agree with Jared Diamond’s overall thesis that the interconnected trade networks linking giant cities on the Eurasian biome (including North Africa) produced network effects that gave Eurasia an unassailable advantage over America, Australia and (probably) Subsaharan Africa. In this context, I think of “guns” and “steel” as catchy concrete shorthand for the the more verbose and abstract “technology and heavy industry”. I think that Eurasian (including north African) dominance over America and Australia (Subsaharan Africa is more nuanced) was so overdetermined by the 15th century that it doesn’t matter to my core thesis whether Jared Diamond was right or wrong about all of his particulars.
Do you disagree with my core takeaway from Jared Diamond that Eurasian (including north African) dominance over America and Australia (and, to a lesser extent, Subsaharan Africa) was overdetermined by the 15th century due to Old World network effects related to technology, disease and industrial capacity stemming from large interconnected population centers?
Do you disagree with my core takeaway from Jared Diamond that Eurasian (including north African) dominance over America and Australia (and, to a lesser extent, Subsaharan Africa) was overdetermined by the 15th century due to Old World network effects related to technology, disease and industrial capacity stemming from large interconnected population centers?
I don’t feel competent enough to have an opinion about it, but Deveraux said a similar thing in the post I linked in the other comment, so it seems plausible in general.
You bring up several points. I don’t think the livestock transmission theory of disease creation is very important. I think what matters is that Eurasia had large, interconnected cities than America, Subsaharan Africa and Australia. That alone is enough to explain the evolution of pandemic diseases.
If we interpret the title literally as describing just “guns”, “germs” [from livestock] and “steel [swords and armor]” then yes, there was more to the conquest of the Mesoamerican civilizations than (literally) steel, guns and horses. European steel production wasn’t that great. Early guns sucked. Horses were quickly adopted by Native Americans. I don’t doubt that those technologies helped, but I think disease, long-range ships and deep symbiotic connections to the more sophisticated Eurasian transcontinental civilization were the most important factors.
The point about “Native Americans…unable react to new weapons/military tactics” seems like a strawman to me. The Plains Indians (just to name one example) were extraordinary combatants famous for their efficient use of rifles. To defeat them, the United States had to terraform the entire Great Plains, and that was a hundred years into the Industrial Revolution. Incidentally, I did read 1491. It’s on my list of the top 13 history books I recommend.
I think the quotes you link mostly attack Jared Diamond’s case, not mine. For example the idea that ““advanced” things are really just “more European.”” feels at odds with my opening sentences “For most of history, China was the center of civilization. It had the biggest cities, the most complex government, the highest quality manufacturing, the most industrial capacity, the most advanced technology, the best historical records and the largest armies. It dominated East Asia at the center of an elaborate tribute system for a thousand years.”
A common theme in the arguments you quote is that Europeans defeated the Mesoamerican civilizations because the Mesoamerican civilizations were divided. I think this fits in neatly with how long-range ships gave European powers the ability to pick advantageous terms (and times) of engagement.
Yeah, I included them because the line of yours that I quoted made it sound like you endorse his case overall (separate from your own argument).
To clarify, I agree with Jared Diamond’s overall thesis that the interconnected trade networks linking giant cities on the Eurasian biome (including North Africa) produced network effects that gave Eurasia an unassailable advantage over America, Australia and (probably) Subsaharan Africa. In this context, I think of “guns” and “steel” as catchy concrete shorthand for the the more verbose and abstract “technology and heavy industry”. I think that Eurasian (including north African) dominance over America and Australia (Subsaharan Africa is more nuanced) was so overdetermined by the 15th century that it doesn’t matter to my core thesis whether Jared Diamond was right or wrong about all of his particulars.
Do you disagree with my core takeaway from Jared Diamond that Eurasian (including north African) dominance over America and Australia (and, to a lesser extent, Subsaharan Africa) was overdetermined by the 15th century due to Old World network effects related to technology, disease and industrial capacity stemming from large interconnected population centers?
I don’t feel competent enough to have an opinion about it, but Deveraux said a similar thing in the post I linked in the other comment, so it seems plausible in general.