Has anyone read the very intersting book "Guns, Germs and Steel" of Jared Diamond ?
It explains why civilizations have arisen in some part of the world rather than in others. The author's main question is "why did the Spaniards conquest to easily the Aztecs, Incas or others native Americans people " ? Why wasn't it Atahualpa (king of the Inca) who came to Madrid to capture king Charles I, instead. Why did the Europeans have guns, steel (armor, swords...), ocean-going ships and epidemic diseases (small-pox, measels, flu, etc.) that decimated Native Americans, Australians or other peoples.
The author also explain that only Mesopotamia and China had enough native species of plants and mamals available for domestication. Mesoamerica, African Sahel and New-Guinea also had a few, but lacked especially protein-riched vegetables (peas,lentils...) and domestic animals, except dogs. There were no horses, cows, pigs, goats or any other domesticable big mamals in America before 1492. Native Americans couldn't have developed horseback-riding, chariot, buffalo-cart or plows without any of these animals. It had for effect that the agriculture or food available was more limited and couldn't support large societies (except for Mexico who had the smash and corn and and the Inca sweet potatoes). Europeans got their domesticates and the agriculture from Mesopotamia. Egypt did as well !
Then, Eurasia and North Africa was by far the largest continent and technologies could spread more rapidly. Aztecs and Incas didn't have much contact because of the difficulty to cross the tropical forest and mountains in the very narrow panama region. The agriculture couldn't have spread easily on a North-South axis because of the different cilmate. In Eurasia, the East-West axis made it very easy.
The book reviews all societies around the world, with an emphasis on New-Guineans, polynesians, Aborigenal Australians, Ancient societies (Mesopotamia, China, etc) and the Americas.
Well, basicly, that's what the book is about. I recommend it to all civ fanatics really interested in more than the war-game aspect of the game (like history and human development).
It explains why civilizations have arisen in some part of the world rather than in others. The author's main question is "why did the Spaniards conquest to easily the Aztecs, Incas or others native Americans people " ? Why wasn't it Atahualpa (king of the Inca) who came to Madrid to capture king Charles I, instead. Why did the Europeans have guns, steel (armor, swords...), ocean-going ships and epidemic diseases (small-pox, measels, flu, etc.) that decimated Native Americans, Australians or other peoples.
The author also explain that only Mesopotamia and China had enough native species of plants and mamals available for domestication. Mesoamerica, African Sahel and New-Guinea also had a few, but lacked especially protein-riched vegetables (peas,lentils...) and domestic animals, except dogs. There were no horses, cows, pigs, goats or any other domesticable big mamals in America before 1492. Native Americans couldn't have developed horseback-riding, chariot, buffalo-cart or plows without any of these animals. It had for effect that the agriculture or food available was more limited and couldn't support large societies (except for Mexico who had the smash and corn and and the Inca sweet potatoes). Europeans got their domesticates and the agriculture from Mesopotamia. Egypt did as well !
Then, Eurasia and North Africa was by far the largest continent and technologies could spread more rapidly. Aztecs and Incas didn't have much contact because of the difficulty to cross the tropical forest and mountains in the very narrow panama region. The agriculture couldn't have spread easily on a North-South axis because of the different cilmate. In Eurasia, the East-West axis made it very easy.
The book reviews all societies around the world, with an emphasis on New-Guineans, polynesians, Aborigenal Australians, Ancient societies (Mesopotamia, China, etc) and the Americas.
Well, basicly, that's what the book is about. I recommend it to all civ fanatics really interested in more than the war-game aspect of the game (like history and human development).
). He certainly presents the case for civilisation in a very interesting and unusual manner. Although I have read it quite some time ago, so have mostly forgotten the details. 
