Monday, July 25, 2005

I just finished watching the PBS series, Guns Germs, and Steel. Surely not as good as the book but I haven't read it, nor did the series make me want to read it. That said, Jared Diamond has some interesting ideas. I'm not going to explore them here save to say that it seemed to discount the Asian and Indian sub-continent. If you get a chance to watch the three hour series it's not a bad way to spend your time (though actually reading the book would probably be better).

I did learn of an event in South African history that was amazing and sad...based on the numbers involved and how it was such a seminal event in the European expansion in that part of Africa. It was the Battle of Blood River (probably could find a better site if I searched a bit harder).

It seems that 470 Voortrekkers (pioneers) slaughtered (defended against?) 10,000 Zulus. Killing 3000 and only suffering three minor casualties. This was largely due to the guns the Voortrekkers had. Technology often trumps numbers.

This got me thinking about other battles where a smaller group survived against, or overwhelmed, a much larger force. To what degree did technology, faith, perserverance, strategy, incompetence, geography, or climate play a factor. And how did the victors interpret their victory?

Does anyone know of any books on the subject?
Posted by at

3 comments:

Peter said...

On the contrary, if you would read the book (which I believe to be one of the single most important books in the history of books about history) you would see that, in fact, Asia is not discounted. In fact, one of the things about Eurasia that gave the cluster of civilizations in it such great advantages was the continuity of temperate grasslands from Europe deep into Asia. Basically, there were few natural barriers to the spread of cultivated plants and animals, from one area to the next. Essentially, Diamond is saying that the cluster of civilizations in Eurasia have benefited from a lateral proximity to each other, in that foodstuffs, knowledge and ideas could be traded or spread. In the Americas there were huge barriers between the Mississippi mound builders, the Maya and Aztecs, and the Incas in South America. Africans were largely isolated from Eurasian influence (except in Northern Africa) until the colonial period by the Sahara and the tropical forests (read malaria and yellow fever). Australia obviously was separated from Eurasia by an ocean. The penguins can have Antarctica.

In fact, two of the best chapters are devoted to Asian history, I think. One is entitled "How China Became Chinese - The history of East Asia." The other is entitled "Speedboat to Polynesia - The history of the Austronesian expansion."

The Indian subcontinent is a unique case, though. It's part of the whole continuity of cultures in Asia from China to the Middle-East, but it's so close to the equator that it's a largely tropical region. That's actually served to insulate it to a large degree from outside influences. Consider it an anomaly.

I have the book. You want to borrow it? I think it was much better than the show.

July 26, 2005 7:58 PM
munkee girl said...

O where, o where can our good pal Ken be? Oh yeah, that's right...in Dallas. Post an update soon, eh?

July 31, 2005 6:43 PM
Ken said...

Thanks Peter.

The latitudinal vs. longitudinal expansion is discussed in detail in the series. However, given the time limitations and the tatget audience...it seems that the Asian connections were not stressed.

July 31, 2005 8:55 PM

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)